This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Which compilers? I'm suspicious of GCC - it too often gets struct parameters and return values internally consistent but wrong :-(
gcc only; I don't have access to the hp compilers. However, Dave (the hppa gcc maintainer) is quite careful about these things, so I think they are correct ;-)
Be careful of white space change, this shouldn't be included. If you want to fix some indention just do it separatly.
ok, there were some stray tabs in the file so i was cleaning them up along the way, but i'll remove that from this diff.
(I've now got a copy of the 32-bit ABI but it doesn't help much)
this is the som runtime doc? it's not particularly clear about small structs.....
the comment doesn't match the assignment.
>+ /* The first parameter goes into sp-36, each stack slot is 4-bytes. >*/
>+ CORE_ADDR param_ptr = 32;
it does, actually, because the param_ptr is incremented by 4 for each argument, so the first one goes to 36.
>+ else if (TYPE_CODE (type) == TYPE_CODE_FLT) >+ {
more comments (the rest is well commented), ``&& TYPE_LENGTH () == 4'' test needed?
>+ param_len = align_up (TYPE_LENGTH (type), 4); >+ memcpy (param_val, VALUE_CONTENTS (arg), param_len);
yes, this bit is wrong. i found some more bugs in this function. will send a new version with the whitespace changes removed and comments added.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |