Re: [RFC] Supporting alternative ABIs

Mark Kettenis
2003-08-22T21:11:41Z

Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com> writes:

> - EXTRACT_RETURN_VALUE, STORE_RETURN_VALUE, USE_STRUCT_CONVENTION and
> gdbarch_push_dummy_code gdbarch methods would be changed to expect
> the type of the function, not the type of its return value. They
> can use TYPE_TARGET_TYPE to get the return value type, but this will
> also give them access to the `calling_convention' for the function type.
>
> - gdbarch_push_dummy_call and EXTRACT_STRUCT_VALUE_ADDRESS would
> receive the function's type as an additional argument, to give them
> access to the function's calling convention information.
>
> - USE_STRUCT_CONVENTION and gdbarch_push_dummy_code would not require
> the `gcc_p' and `using_gcc' flags anymore since this information
> is now given in the function type node. Due to the way,
> gdbarch_parse_dwarf2_calling_convention evaluates the `calling_convention'
> value, all inferior call-related gdbarch methods could simply trust its
> value.

I was working on the (32-bit) SPARC target today, and wished I had the
function type available, so I'm positive this would be a good move.

Mark