Re: RFA: MI tests: tolerate prototypes

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 02:03:20PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> 
> > Jim, my preference here is more along your proposal - have an explicit
> > ``prototype-unknown'' state.
> > 
> >  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.
> 
> Well, I wouldn't call it target-specific.  The compromise we're making
> is more like this:
> 
> GCC's STABS describe prototyped function types as if they were
> non-prototyped function types.  However, it does provide accurate
> pass-as types for function definitions.  This means that GDB can
> correctly call functions under STABS if it reads function definition
> types *as if* they were prototyped, using the pass-as types as the
> argument types.
> 
> The downsides of this proposal:
> 
> - GDB will print function argument types incorrectly.  For example, 
>   suppose we have the following function definition:
> 
>      int f (short s, float f) { return s + f; }
> 
>   Since the arguments' pass-as types for `s' and `f' are `int' and
>   `double', GDB will print f's type as `int f(int, double)'.  This is
>   weird, but it's a direct consequence of lying about the type.

Clarification: If f were not prototyped, this would be true.  So it's a
very small price to pay, IMHO.  If it is prototyped, the pass-as type
for f will be float, right?

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