From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 80316 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2018 14:03:42 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 76781 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jul 2018 14:03:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:03:35 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AD7981A4E9F; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:03:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFBA22156897; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:03:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [RFA 05/13] Make a few calls in *-tdep.c for effect To: Simon Marchi , Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20180712205208.32646-1-tom@tromey.com> <20180712205208.32646-6-tom@tromey.com> <35c1df51-3538-53ee-4e55-4df53ec1528d@ericsson.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <35c1df51-3538-53ee-4e55-4df53ec1528d@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-07/txt/msg00479.txt.bz2 On 07/12/2018 10:58 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2018-07-12 04:52 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >> In a few cases, there were calls in *-tdep.c that I did not want to >> remove because I was not certain that it was safe -- perhaps the side >> effect of the function (generally throwing an error) was desired. > > I am fairly confident that the find_function_addr calls are not necessary. > If you look at call_function_by_hand_dummy, it calls find_function_addr > with the same function argument before calling push_dummy_call: > > CORE_ADDR funaddr = find_function_addr (function, &values_type, &ftype); > > So if the function has to throw, it will be in this invocation. The fact > that no widely tested architecture does that also leads me to think it's > unnecessary. > > I don't think the get_adi_info_proc call is useful either. All it does > is return the sparc64_adi_info belonging to inferior_ptid. If it already > exists, the call does nothing. If it does not already exist, it will be > created. The call adi_available just before will have created it, if it > didn't already. Agreed. Thanks, Pedro Alves