This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: MI tests: tolerate prototypes
> Daniel Jacobowitz <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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