This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 0/4] PR c++/13403 and PR c++/15154: Fix function calling convention in gnuv3 ABI
- From: Siva Chandra <sivachandra at google dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 05:03:53 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PR c++/13403 and PR c++/15154: Fix function calling convention in gnuv3 ABI
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAGyQ6gy=u+0V42En2rpvwy9n0Ejf_1VfR+xOArLxc1SmoTf2Ug at mail dot gmail dot com> <CADPb22SFxfrvDABtsAa-eXJ6OcVxM5_OT6WiXCRxUk=efyTWLA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Siva Chandra <sivachandra@google.com> wrote:
>> This patch series addresses the two listed PRs. The gnuv3 ABI function
>> which decides whether a class value has to be passed by reference (or,
>> returned in a hidden first parameter) is currently incomplete. This
>> patch series completes it.
>>
>> The way I have organised my patches is that:
>>
>> - Patch 1/4 adds tests which illustrate what is missing. One test
>> fails, another passes.
>> - Patch 2/4 fixes the ABI to address the failing the test in 1/4.
>> - Patch 3/4 adds another failing test.
>> - Patch 4/4 fixes the ABI to address the failing test in 3/4.
>>
>> If the patches go in in the same order as above, then the tree will
>> have one new failing test after 1/4 lands but before 2/4 lands. Is
>> that OK? If not, then I can merge 1 and 2 into one patch, and 3 and 4
>> into 1 patch. I have ordered it this way because I thought it might be
>> easier for the reviewers to see what works and what doesn't currently.
>
> That order is fine by me.
Pushed the patch set.
778811d5e7eb96b5ecb848033ffaa2df455a921e
82c48ac732edb0155288a93ef3dd39625ff2d2e1
2d1c107c1b8835f4e85c35320d8595a4a6fcaebe
ebb8ece2ef50ba3f86e8b4ab7a22a4c7734d114b