Re: [RFA/sparc] pb doing next over struct-return function

["Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:33:06 +0100 (CET)
> From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>
> CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> Return non-zero if the instruction at PC is an "unimp" instruction.
>        ^^^^^^^^                              ^
> 
>    +  else
>    +    {
>    +      /* There is no debugging information for this function to
>    +         help us determine whether this function returns a struct
>    +         or not.  So we rely on another heuristic which is to check
>    +         the instruction at the return address and see if this is
>    +         a "unimp" instruction.  If it is, then it is struct-return
>    +         function.  */
> 
> an "unimp" instruction.
>  ^                                           ^

Really?  I'm not a native English speaker, but I think "a unimp" is
correct.  It's like "a university", isn't it?

Perhaps "the unimp instruction" would be better, though, since it's a
name of a specific instruction.