This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: ARM PATCH fix extract_return_value and store_return_value
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at buzzard dot freeserve dot co dot uk, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, rearnsha at arm dot com
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:44:58 -0800
- Subject: Re: ARM PATCH fix extract_return_value and store_return_value
- Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
- References: <200301241111.h0OBBxo13651@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > > 2002-12-14 Richard Earnshaw <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > >
> > > * arm-tdep.c (convert_from_extended): New argument to hold the
> > > type of floating point result we want to convert to. Make input
> > > argument const. Fix all callers.
> > > (convert_to_extended): Similarly.
> > > (arm_extract_return_value): Now takes a regcache argument. Change
> > > code to use regcache accessor functions. Correctly extract
> > > smaller-than-word results on big-endian machines.
> > > (arm_store_return_value): Now takes a regcache argument. Change
> > > code to use regcache accessor functions. Correctly zero/sign extend
> > > smaller than word results before storing into r0.
> > > (arm_gdbarch_init): Register new-style extract_return_value and
> > > store_return_value functions.
> > Hi Richard,
> > I can report that these
> > changes do fix two fails for big-endian running callfuncs.exp.
> > One of the fails was returning a one-byte struct, the other
> > a two-byte struct. There were no other fails in callfuncs.exp.
> Excellent. Thanks for doing the tests.
> > As is, they conflict with some of Elena's
> > vector changes, but I've massaged them into closer conformance
> > with a more recent revision. Here's my merged patch (not entirely
> > up to date, but more recent than what appears here).
> I installed the patches to the public tree back in December, so these
> conflicts must relate to some internal version you are testing on.
D'oh! You're right, I'm working with sources that we're just now
getting ready to contribute. Well, we'll work out the conflicts then.
Meantime, archaeological evidence indicates that we've covered the
cases that were troubling me before, so I guess we can close this
issue at least until Red Hat contributes the iMWXT port.
Thanks so much for your help on this!