From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27210 invoked by alias); 19 May 2011 10:12:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 27194 invoked by uid 22791); 19 May 2011 10:12:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 May 2011 10:11:58 +0000 Received: (qmail 17807 invoked from network); 19 May 2011 10:11:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 19 May 2011 10:11:57 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QN0Cy-0002aZ-3k; Thu, 19 May 2011 10:11:56 +0000 Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 10:12:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Yao Qi cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [_Complex test 1/4] support_complex_tests in gdb.exp and pass _Complex args to func In-Reply-To: <4DD49BE7.80206@codesourcery.com> Message-ID: References: <4DC401D0.1050500@codesourcery.com> <4DC75036.4040806@codesourcery.com> <4DD49BE7.80206@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00430.txt.bz2 On Thu, 19 May 2011, Yao Qi wrote: > The other part I am not sure is about PROTOTYPES. If I understand it > correctly, these stuff are used to be compatible with old C standard, > while _Complex types are introduced in C99. We may don't need prototype > stuffs for functions of _Complex args/return type. In my patch, I still > follow the existing manner. I don't know how PROTOTYPES is used in the GDB testsuite. I don't see any need to support compilers with complex support but without prototypes support. However, it does make sense to test that passing _Complex float to an unprototyped function works correctly. (Whereas float is promoted to double when passed to an unprototyped function, _Complex float is *not* promoted to _Complex double. Hopefully GDB already knows that, but it seems a good thing to have a test of.) -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com