This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.org 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: Assuming types for PC

From: Luis Machado <lgustavo at codesourcery dot com>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:33:56 +0200
Subject: Re: Assuming types for PC
References: <51B5E06A dot 8020807 at codesourcery dot com> <201306101431 dot r5AEVAfb007850 at glazunov dot sibelius dot xs4all dot nl>
Reply-to: lgustavo at codesourcery dot com

On 06/10/2013 04:31 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote:

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:19:22 +0200
From: Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>

Hi,

I see gdb.base/ptype.exp assuming PC needs to be of type void (*)().

    # Test ptype of user register
    gdb_test "ptype \$pc" "void \\(\\*\\)\\(\\)" "ptype \$pc"

Is there any reason we should assume that? Some targets use "long long"
or "int32_t" for PC.


I consider that to be a bug.  Fixing that bug turned out to be
somewhat difficult on some architectures that have a 32-bit/64-bit
identity crisis; see the x32 discussions from last year.

Architectures are free to deal with the types of their PC's as theyplease. Some keep the standard while others don't. I don't have a strongopinion here, but i wouldn't call this a bug immediately.

If PC should not have a fixed type, i think it would be best to remove
this check.


Please don't.


Is there a more elaborate reasoning for not removing this check?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Assuming types for PC
  - From: Joel Brobecker
- Re: Assuming types for PC
  - From: Mark Kettenis

References:
- Assuming types for PC
  - From: Luis Machado
- Re: Assuming types for PC
  - From: Mark Kettenis

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