From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28169 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2003 15:04:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 28162 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2003 15:04:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 2003 15:04:45 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC772B89; Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:04:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F799B8C.8030601@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:53:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: value to function? References: <3F76FB5B.4030401@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00392.txt.bz2 > Andrew Cagney writes: > >> If the proposal to pass a function value to push_dummy_call is going >> to fly there's going to need to be a method that converts an arbitrary >> value into a function/method value. > > > A new gdbarch method to be called from where, specifically? This area > is a mess (just try describing the behavior of find_function_addr...), > so I'm not sure what you mean. Now I think I'm missing something. What new architecture method? What mess? > Kind of like find_function_addr() and the oposite of value_coerce_function. pre (I guess that value isn't void or NULL); struct value *foo (struct value *); post (VALUE_TYPE (foo (value)) == TYPE_CODE_FUNC || VALUE_TYPE (foo (value)) == TYPE_CODE_METHOD)); it would be used in relative proximity to push_dummy_call and return_value (ex, replace find_function_addr). Andrew