Re: RFA: MI tests: tolerate prototypes

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 07:14:35PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> >
> >>> Ah, by building `prototype'-style types for all the functions, even
> >>> those declared without prototypes, and using the called-as types as
> >>> the prototype argument types.  It'll work because, even though the
> >>> type claims to be prototyped, the argument types are such that we end
> >>> up doing the same promotions required by the rules for calling
> >>> non-prototyped functions.
> >
> >>
> >>So, the question becomes - do we need MAYBE_PROTOTYPED?  If we accept
> >>that the types marked in stabs as parameters are promoted types, then
> >>we can simply mark stabs functions as being prototyped, and trust
> >>TYPE_FLAG_PROTOTYPED more than we do.
> >
> >
> >If we do that, then:
> >- Dwarf 2 will continue to work correctly, since its prototype info
> >  has always been accurate,
> >- under STABS, calls to functions whose definitions we have debug info
> >  for will always work, unlike the current state of affairs, and 
> >- under STABS, calls via function pointers will do non-prototyped
> >  argument promotion, which is no worse than now.
> >
> >Sounds good to me.
> >
> >It does bother me, sort of on principle, that we won't really have
> >info about which functions were declared in which way.  I mean,
> >prototypedness is a real property of function types in ISO C.  But
> >given that our debug format doesn't carry the info we need, I guess
> >I'll just get over it. :)
> 
> 
> Jim, my preference here is more along your proposal - have an explicit 
> ``prototype-unknown'' state.

I don't think we need it.  It seems that for at least stabs and DWARF-2
we have enough information to call the prototyped-ness known in all
cases.  In stabs we don't know if it is really prototyped or not, but
we know the called-as type, which is close enough to a prototype for
our purposes until debug info gets itself fixed.

> From memory the last time this came up I also suggested here that 
> changing the default behavour across GDB is probably a good thing.  I 
> don't think this is something that individual targets should be 
> deciding.  Instead GDB should exibit consistent behavour across 
> host/target combinations, the decision being made on the basis of the 
> debug info.

Certainly, it shouldn't be target-specific.  It depends only on the
debug format.

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