Re: Assuming types for PC

Mark Kettenis
2013-06-10T14:31:19Z

> 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.