From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28209 invoked by alias); 4 May 2012 23:25:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 28197 invoked by uid 22791); 4 May 2012 23:25:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 May 2012 23:25:17 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1SQRsB-0006dl-Re from Maciej_Rozycki@mentor.com ; Fri, 04 May 2012 16:25:15 -0700 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 4 May 2012 16:25:15 -0700 Received: from [172.30.1.40] (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Sat, 5 May 2012 00:25:13 +0100 Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 23:25:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Mark Kettenis CC: , Subject: Re: [RFA 1/2] mips: Switch inferior function calls to ON_STACK method. In-Reply-To: <201205042118.q44LIh3p018153@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: References: <1336071802-13599-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <1336071802-13599-2-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20120503214933.GJ15555@adacore.com> <20120504205818.GT15555@adacore.com> <201205042118.q44LIh3p018153@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) 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: 2012-05/txt/msg00142.txt.bz2 On Fri, 4 May 2012, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > Understood, but I'd be happier if the comment you're removing or a > > > similar stayed in place. If by trap you mean SIGTRAP, then I think this > > > is not going to be the case. > > > > I think you refer to the comment from Andrew Cagney? I've put it back > > as is. > > I really don't think that comment is helpful anymore. Almost ten > years have gone by without anyone feeling the need to implement the > command Andrew is alluding to here, I referred to the non-executable stack behaviour, not the command wished for, sorry if I worded that ambiguously. > > OK to commit, modulo the possible rename above? > > Seems you missed my comment about the the mips_frame_align() call. > It's unecessary since the frame is already properly aligned by the > calles of push_dummy_code(). Indeed. > > +/* Implement the push_dummy_code gdbarch method for mips targets. */ > > Perhaps change that comment into: > > /* Implement the "push_dummy_call" gdbarch method. */ > > such that it is consistent with the style of comments in rl78-tdep.c > and rx-tdep.c and moxie-tdep.c? The "for mips targets" isn't really > adding any information (and might end up accidentally being copied). As per my suggestion I think it makes sense to document any peculiarities of this specific implementation here as well (in this case the safety to use with non-executable stack). Maciej