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: [RFA] mips-n32 reg_struct_has_addr

From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at ges dot redhat dot com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 13:12:13 -0400
Subject: Re: [RFA] mips-n32 reg_struct_has_addr
References: <3D49EC2D.86CF5517@redhat.com> <3D504783.3060706@ges.redhat.com> <3D504E8C.4C0FD7BE@redhat.com>

No, I don't think this is right.  As best I can tell, there is no cap on
the size of a struct that is passed by register.

http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi/srch3@o32/0650/bks/SGI_Developer/books/Mpro_n32_ABI/sgi_html/ch02.html#id80931

I.e., o32 and n32/n64 are the same -> never pass structures by reference.
OK, patch withdrawn, I will resubmit it using this assumption, just to get the gdbarch-ification checked in, and then we can
work on resolving how N32/64 should work.

Thanks!

BTW, if you're trying to test this, DO NOT TRUST GCC! Check things out with an SGI compiler.

Andrew

References:
- [RFA] mips-n32 reg_struct_has_addr
  - From: Michael Snyder
- Re: [RFA] mips-n32 reg_struct_has_addr
  - From: Andrew Cagney
- Re: [RFA] mips-n32 reg_struct_has_addr
  - From: Michael Snyder

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