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]

Re: [patch/rfa] fix call-dummies for hppa


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.....

yes. the 64-bit one is much better.


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.

ok, just expand the comment to clarify this.


>+	  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.

With a comment tweak, ok to commit.


Andrew



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]