From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14181 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2004 13:36:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14171 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2004 13:36:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 Jun 2004 13:36:37 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i55Daai7017273 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 09:36:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i55DaT004236; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 09:36:30 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4FF62B9F; Sat, 5 Jun 2004 09:36:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40C1CC51.1020706@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 13:36:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: randolph@tausq.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfa] function descriptor handling for push_dummy_call References: <20040604061024.GQ601@tausq.org> <40C0C30C.7020308@gnu.org> <1438-Sat05Jun2004131412+0300-eliz@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <1438-Sat05Jun2004131412+0300-eliz@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00099.txt.bz2 >>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:44:28 -0400 >>> From: Andrew Cagney >>> >>> I'm ok with the gdbarch and hp/ux mods (suggest separate commits?). I'd >>> just first check that Eli is ok with the doco aspect of the >>> gdbint.texinfo change. > > > Oops, sorry, missed the original message (probably because the > documentation patch didn't stand out in the logs). > > However, the change seems to be a cosmetic one: it renames a single > argument to push_dummy_call from `func_addr' to `function'. Why is > that necessary? I think it is, the parameter is now a `struct value' function and not a function's code address. (It is also more consistent with the code). Andrew