From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-14960-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 25034 invoked by alias); 1 May 2002 16:13:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 25010 invoked from network); 1 May 2002 16:13:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO zwingli.cygnus.com) (208.245.165.35)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 May 2002 16:13:49 -0000
Received: by zwingli.cygnus.com (Postfix, from userid 442)
	id BABEA5EA11; Wed,  1 May 2002 11:13:48 -0500 (EST)
To: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>
Cc: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Altivec ABI patches
References: <15561.48188.141526.557982@localhost.redhat.com>
	<1020426230236.ZM31350@localhost.localdomain>
	<15562.646.506619.140778@localhost.redhat.com>
	<1020427080809.ZM32701@localhost.localdomain>
	<15565.26939.309256.444181@localhost.redhat.com>
	<npg01effwi.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
	<15565.44421.333605.509796@localhost.redhat.com>
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 09:13:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <15565.44421.333605.509796@localhost.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <npvga73kxv.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2

Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com> writes:
> Jim Blandy writes:
>  > 
>  > I don't see anything here that prevents vectors from being coerced to
>  > pointers to their first element.  Isn't there some change needed in
>  > evaluate_subexp_with_coercion?
> 
> You mean value_arg_coerce()?

Err, ... yeah, that's what I meant.  :)

> There is no arithmetic you can do with
> these types.  Anyway, you are right I forgot that. My tests didn't
> catch it because I was doing the call by hand after having done a step
> into and finish from the function. The registers still contained the
> correct values from the gcc-initiated call. Moving the gdb-initiated
> call to before the gcc-initiated one exposed the problem.
> 
> I'll make sure the registers are trashed between calls.

Gruvi.