From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from angie.orcam.me.uk (angie.orcam.me.uk [IPv6:2001:4190:8020::34]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D20D8385CFF4 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:37:16 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org D20D8385CFF4 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=orcam.me.uk Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=orcam.me.uk Received: by angie.orcam.me.uk (Postfix, from userid 500) id 3675A92009C; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:37:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by angie.orcam.me.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F7DF92009B; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:37:16 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:37:16 +0100 (BST) From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Richard Sandiford cc: Youling Tang , Andrew Burgess , Lancelot SIX , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [COMMITTED PATCH v2] gdb: mips: Fix the handling of complex type of function return value In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1647406106-25723-1-git-send-email-tangyouling@loongson.cn> <20220316084248.m5m2et3njtngeoge@Plymouth> <877d8uuop8.fsf@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3489.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_INFOUSMEBIZ, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:37:18 -0000 On Fri, 8 Apr 2022, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > Richard, would you by any chance know/remember what IRIX/MIPSpro did > > here? > > No, sorry. I remember there were some cases where we had to choose > between compatibility with MIPSpro and backwards compatibility with > GCC (which did something different and thus presumably “wrong”). > Since GCC de facto the ABI for GNU systems, it wasn't always an > easy choice. But that might not overlap with this case. OK, thanks for your consideration. I'll try to find some time to get back to these issues once Stage 1 has opened and then people can discuss actual code changes proposed and see what to do here. Maciej