I've committed the attached based on the theory that adding comments is
always a good thing.
Andrew
2002-04-26 Andrew Cagney <ac131313@xxxxxxxxxx>
* sparc-tdep.c (sparc_gdbarch_init): Add comment explaining why
ON_STACK is needed.
Index: sparc-tdep.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/sparc-tdep.c,v
retrieving revision 1.32
diff -u -r1.32 sparc-tdep.c
--- sparc-tdep.c 26 Apr 2002 01:56:04 -0000 1.32
+++ sparc-tdep.c 26 Apr 2002 22:26:31 -0000
@@ -3026,6 +3026,50 @@
set_gdbarch_call_dummy_address (gdbarch, sparc_call_dummy_address);
set_gdbarch_call_dummy_breakpoint_offset (gdbarch, 0x30);
set_gdbarch_call_dummy_length (gdbarch, 0x38);
+
+ /* NOTE: cagney/2002-04-26: Based from info posted by Peter
+ Schauer around Oct '99. Briefly, due to aspects of the SPARC
+ ABI, it isn't possible to use ON_STACK with a strictly
+ compliant compiler.
+
+ Peter Schauer writes ...
+
+ No, any call from GDB to a user function returning a
+ struct/union will fail miserably. Try this:
+
+ *NOINDENT*
+ struct x
+ {
+ int a[4];
+ };
+
+ struct x gx;
+
+ struct x
+ sret ()
+ {
+ return gx;
+ }
+
+ main ()
+ {
+ int i;
+ for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
+ gx.a[i] = i + 1;
+ gx = sret ();
+ }
+ *INDENT*
+
+ Set a breakpoint at the gx = sret () statement, run to it and
+ issue a `print sret()'. It will not succed with your
+ approach, and I doubt that continuing the program will work
+ as well.
+
+ For details of the ABI see the Sparc Architecture Manual. I
+ have Version 8 (Prentice Hall ISBN 0-13-825001-4) and the
+ calling conventions for functions returning aggregate values
+ are explained in Appendix D.3. */
+
set_gdbarch_call_dummy_location (gdbarch, ON_STACK);
set_gdbarch_call_dummy_words (gdbarch, call_dummy_32);
#else
|
