From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-42245-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 32609 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2013 14:31:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 32596 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jun 2013 14:31:18 -0000
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:31:16 +0000
Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1])	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r5AEVA2V016199;	Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:31:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id r5AEVAfb007850;	Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:31:10 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:31:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201306101431.r5AEVAfb007850@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: lgustavo@codesourcery.com
CC: gdb@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <51B5E06A.8020807@codesourcery.com> (message from Luis Machado on	Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:19:22 +0200)
Subject: Re: Assuming types for PC
References:  <51B5E06A.8020807@codesourcery.com>
X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2

> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:19:22 +0200
> From: Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I see gdb.base/ptype.exp assuming PC needs to be of type void (*)().
> 
>    # Test ptype of user register
>    gdb_test "ptype \$pc" "void \\(\\*\\)\\(\\)" "ptype \$pc"
> 
> Is there any reason we should assume that? Some targets use "long long" 
> or "int32_t" for PC.

I consider that to be a bug.  Fixing that bug turned out to be
somewhat difficult on some architectures that have a 32-bit/64-bit
identity crisis; see the x32 discussions from last year.

> If PC should not have a fixed type, i think it would be best to remove 
> this check.

Please don't.