From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-61052-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 31199 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2009 09:52:12 -0000
Received: (qmail 31190 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jan 2009 09:52:11 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mx.meyering.net (HELO mx.meyering.net) (82.230.74.64)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:51:34 +0000
Received: by rho.meyering.net (Acme Bit-Twister, from userid 1000) 	id 1152C35BD0; Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:51:31 +0100 (CET)
From: Jim Meyering <jim@meyering.net>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org,  Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: rawhide's gdb segfaults, w/patch
In-Reply-To: <20090109214512.GA5851@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> (Jan 	Kratochvil's message of "Fri, 9 Jan 2009 22:45:12 +0100")
References: <87abag9pi1.fsf@rho.meyering.net> 	<20090109214512.GA5851@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:52:00 -0000
Message-ID: <87d4evlc9o.fsf@meyering.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-01/txt/msg00222.txt.bz2

Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> thanks but your patch needed a second part.  It is a regression from:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2008-04/msg00136.html
>
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:30:14 +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Here's an untested and quite possibly-wrong patch.
>> I.e., if the warning should be given even when "thisfun" is NULL,
>> it would have to be different.
>
> I find it right as gdbarch_return_value_ftype even has a comment:
> FUNCTYPE may be NULL in which case the return convention is computed based
> only on VALTYPE.
>
> This new argument and functype|func_type is only used in sh-tdep.c
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-04/msg00277.html
> and even there it can be safely NULL.

Hi Jan,

Thanks for dealing with that!