Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:33:56 +0200
From: Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>
On 06/10/2013 04:31 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:19:22 +0200
From: Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>
Hi,
I see gdb.base/ptype.exp assuming PC needs to be of type void (*)().
# Test ptype of user register
gdb_test "ptype \$pc" "void \\(\\*\\)\\(\\)" "ptype \$pc"
Is there any reason we should assume that? Some targets use "long long"
or "int32_t" for PC.
I consider that to be a bug. Fixing that bug turned out to be
somewhat difficult on some architectures that have a 32-bit/64-bit
identity crisis; see the x32 discussions from last year.
Architectures are free to deal with the types of their PC's as they
please. Some keep the standard while others don't. I don't have a strong
opinion here, but i wouldn't call this a bug immediately.
When the PC type is "code_ptr", GDB does some useful pretty printing
that it doesn't do if it is a simple integer type. Like printing the
function name thet the PC points to. I think GDB should do that for
all architectures.
If PC should not have a fixed type, i think it would be best to remove
this check.
Please don't.
Is there a more elaborate reasoning for not removing this check?
It serves a s a reminder that there are still issues to fix for some
of the architectures. Perhaps we should add a KFAIL for architectures
that have the 32-bit/64-bit identity crisis I mentioned. But other
architectures should just change the PC type to "code_ptr".