This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA/sparc] pb doing next over struct-return function
- From: Paul Hilfinger <hilfingr at EECS dot Berkeley dot EDU>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at gnu dot org>, brobecker at adacore dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:45:51 -0800
- Subject: Re: [RFA/sparc] pb doing next over 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?
Well, not really. "University" starts with the semi-consonant sound
"y" (I'm sure there is more formal term than semi-consonant, but I am
no linguist), whereas "unimp" starts with a vowel sound, "uh" as in
"onion".
> Perhaps "the unimp instruction" would be better, though, since it's a
> name of a specific instruction.
Would be a conservative choice, but alas the context refers to an
instruction INSTANCE, not an instruction category. Thus, the
implication of "the" would be either that there is one and only one
unimp instruction in the universe, and here it is, or that I had
previously identified a small section of my assembly listing, and I am
now referring to the one unimp instruction in that section.
Paul Hilfinger