From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16329 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2011 17:24:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 16313 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jul 2011 17:24:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:23:46 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6KHNhsL030810 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:23:43 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6KHNhiY020725; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:23:43 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6KHNfqZ032283; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:23:41 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Matt Rice Cc: Mike Frysinger , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] bfin: swapped args in bfin_extract_return_value? References: Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:55:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Matt Rice's message of "Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:55:53 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2011-07/txt/msg00554.txt.bz2 Matt> Thanks for confirming, I commited my patch as originally posted. Matt> not sure if Tom's was an OK, but it seems to at least fall under the Matt> 'its obvious now.' rule. Yeah, I think it was obvious. I think I was incorrect about the store_unsigned_integer. It looks like the return_value gdbarch method expects to see target-ordered bytes. Sorry about the confusion. Tom