From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10967 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2002 11:24:18 -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 10890 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2002 11:24:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO is.elta.co.il) (199.203.121.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Feb 2002 11:24:14 -0000 Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA22940; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:23:07 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 03:24:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz@is To: Klee Dienes cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Function return type checking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00112.txt.bz2 On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Klee Dienes wrote: > The following patch adds "expected return type" support to the target > function call interface. The "expected return type" is specified > using cast syntax; it is ignored if actual type information for the > function is available. If no type information is provided for a > function, the user is now required to provide an expected return type > using the cast syntax, or get an error. I don't know whether we want this behavior, but if this patch is accepted, these subtleties surely need to be documented in the user's manual.