From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-49657-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 10045 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2007 17:15:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 10031 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jun 2007 17:15:15 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.22)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:15:13 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-242-61.inter.net.il [84.228.242.61]) 	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) 	with ESMTP id HCO84367 (AUTH halo1); 	Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:15:15 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:46:00 -0000
Message-Id: <uved6n0mb.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>
CC: drow@false.org, deuling@de.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org,         uweigand@de.ibm.com
In-reply-to: <m3bqf0eyar.fsf@codesourcery.com> (message from Jim Blandy on 	Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:20:12 -0700)
Subject: Re: [rfc] Replace macros by gdbarch functions in gdbint manual
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <4678FEBE.7040209@de.ibm.com> <u7ipyqxxz.fsf@gnu.org> 	<467B7557.9000708@de.ibm.com> <uodj7p04s.fsf@gnu.org> 	<4681382D.1070708@de.ibm.com> <u1wfxntc4.fsf@gnu.org> 	<20070627201134.GA8087@caradoc.them.org> <uzm2kn5a5.fsf@gnu.org> <m3bqf0eyar.fsf@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-06/txt/msg00530.txt.bz2

> Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>,  deuling@de.ibm.com,
> 	  gdb-patches@sourceware.org,  uweigand@de.ibm.com
> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:20:12 -0700
> 
> > Or maybe, since you say this is the name of an actual variable, use
> > @code{struct_return} instead of @var?
> 
> It's an argument to the function, and our convention is to use @var
> for those, right?

No, not really.  However, I missed the fact that struct_return is
already in @var in the argument list of push_dummy, and the wording we
were discussing is part of the ensuing description of push_dummy.  So
in this case using @var is exactly right.