Re: ARM float changes

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 12:29:24PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >For instance, my results on i386-linux, callfuncs.exp:
> >>standard coercion			default coercion
> >>=================			================
> >>
> >>GCC 2.95
> >>stabs+	1 XPASS, 1 FAIL, 1 XFAIL	1 FAIL, 2 XPASS
> >>dwarf2	1 FAIL				5 FAIL
> >>
> >>GCC 3.0.4pre
> >>stabs+	1 XPASS, 1 XFAIL		2 XPASS
> >>dwarf2	0 FAILS				4 FAIL
> >>
> >
> >
> >So doesn't all this mean that the coercion model should be selected based 
> >on the debug-info type?  Can we do that dynamically in the back-end?
> 
> 
> I suspect, in truth the target should never have even been allowed to 
> enter the picture.  The core of GDB should have set a policy based on 
> debug info and then stuck with it.
> 
> The change at least makes things consistent with other modern targets. 
> From memory the comment that goes with standard_...() hints strongly 
> that no target should ever be using default_...().
> 
> I think this illustrates my contention that GDB should bite the bullet 
> and ``break'' some targets but fix the problem.

See my comment on gdb@ about this just now.  While standard appears to
be the way to go for DWARF-2, the right solution for stabs just seems
to be pretending we always have a prototype.  I'll look over what
various targets actually set this to... dealing with setting it based
on debug info is somewhat dubious, since debug info may be mixed in the
same objfile.

> I can always make the next release 6.0 :-^

:)

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer