Re: Assuming types for PC

[Luis Machado <lgustavo at codesourcery dot com>]

On 06/10/2013 04:45 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > Architectures are free to deal with the types of their PC's as they
> > please. Some keep the standard while others don't. I don't have a
> > strong opinion 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?
>
> Here is a URL to the original discussion. DanielJ mention that we might
> want to loosen up the check, but then added something that confirms
> Mark's preference:
>
> http://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-01/msg00699.html
> | Might want to loosen the expected type; I don't think every platform
> | returns a function type for PC.
> |
> | Then again, might not want to - everyone should do so :-)
>
> So, I'm guessing that without a compelling reason to change it,
> it should stay that way...

Right. I did some archaeology and ended up at that commit, aimed at 
testing for an internal error fix rather than the correct type of PC.

I didn't find the reasoning particularly clear. Then again, i'm just 
asking to be sure. :-)