This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Address FIXME in i386-tdep.c:i386_extract_struct_value_address
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- To: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at chello dot nl>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 18:11:58 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Address FIXME in i386-tdep.c:i386_extract_struct_value_address
- References: <200210261441.g9QEff6t004409@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <3DBACF7C.4010403@redhat.com> <200210271625.g9RGP9ks005560@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 13:23:08 -0400
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
> We know for sure here that we're not dealing with a cooked register.
That's what you think :-) It's more correct here to use the cooked
interface.
Care to enlighten me? Is it that one should always use the cooked
interface, except in code that's present to support the cooked
interface in the first place?
Yes.
ABI code (such as that finding the location of the struct return
pointer) interacts with the cooked interface.
That way, nothing (except the code to map cooked registers onto raw
registers and/or memory) knows exactly how the underlying registers are
implemented.
Andrew