void _initialize_valops (void);
-#define VALUE_SUBSTRING_START(VAL) VALUE_FRAME(VAL)
-
/* Flag for whether we want to abandon failed expression evals by default. */
#if 0
(LONGEST) (longest ? 1 : 0) : longest);
}
else if (code1 == TYPE_CODE_PTR && (code2 == TYPE_CODE_INT ||
- code2 == TYPE_CODE_ENUM ||
- code2 == TYPE_CODE_RANGE))
+ code2 == TYPE_CODE_ENUM ||
+ code2 == TYPE_CODE_RANGE))
{
int ptr_bit = HOST_CHAR_BIT * TYPE_LENGTH (type);
LONGEST longest = value_as_long (arg2);
if (TYPE_CODE (ftype) == TYPE_CODE_FUNC
|| TYPE_CODE (ftype) == TYPE_CODE_METHOD)
{
-#ifdef CONVERT_FROM_FUNC_PTR_ADDR
- /* FIXME: This is a workaround for the unusual function
- pointer representation on the RS/6000, see comment
- in config/rs6000/tm-rs6000.h */
funaddr = CONVERT_FROM_FUNC_PTR_ADDR (funaddr);
-#endif
value_type = TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (ftype);
}
else
}
}
-/* elz: on HPPA no need for this extra alignment, maybe it is needed
- on other architectures. This is because all the alignment is taken care
- of in the above code (ifdef REG_STRUCT_HAS_ADDR) and in
- hppa_push_arguments */
-#ifndef NO_EXTRA_ALIGNMENT_NEEDED
-
- /* MVS 11/22/96: I think at least some of this stack_align code is
- really broken. Better to let PUSH_ARGUMENTS adjust the stack in
- a target-defined manner. */
- if (STACK_ALIGN_P () && INNER_THAN (1, 2))
+ /* elz: on HPPA no need for this extra alignment, maybe it is needed
+ on other architectures. This is because all the alignment is
+ taken care of in the above code (ifdef REG_STRUCT_HAS_ADDR) and
+ in hppa_push_arguments */
+ if (EXTRA_STACK_ALIGNMENT_NEEDED)
{
- /* If stack grows down, we must leave a hole at the top. */
- int len = 0;
-
- for (i = nargs - 1; i >= 0; i--)
- len += TYPE_LENGTH (VALUE_ENCLOSING_TYPE (args[i]));
- if (CALL_DUMMY_STACK_ADJUST_P)
- len += CALL_DUMMY_STACK_ADJUST;
- sp -= STACK_ALIGN (len) - len;
+ /* MVS 11/22/96: I think at least some of this stack_align code
+ is really broken. Better to let PUSH_ARGUMENTS adjust the
+ stack in a target-defined manner. */
+ if (STACK_ALIGN_P () && INNER_THAN (1, 2))
+ {
+ /* If stack grows down, we must leave a hole at the top. */
+ int len = 0;
+
+ for (i = nargs - 1; i >= 0; i--)
+ len += TYPE_LENGTH (VALUE_ENCLOSING_TYPE (args[i]));
+ if (CALL_DUMMY_STACK_ADJUST_P)
+ len += CALL_DUMMY_STACK_ADJUST;
+ sp -= STACK_ALIGN (len) - len;
+ }
}
-#endif /* NO_EXTRA_ALIGNMENT_NEEDED */
sp = PUSH_ARGUMENTS (nargs, args, sp, struct_return, struct_addr);
requested operation is type secure, shouldn't we? FIXME. */
static int
-typecmp (staticp, t1, t2)
- int staticp;
- struct type *t1[];
- value_ptr t2[];
+typecmp (int staticp, struct type *t1[], value_ptr t2[])
{
int i;
default:
break;
}
- free (parm_types);
+ xfree (parm_types);
if (overload_debug)
{
if (method)
else
{
*symp = oload_syms[oload_champ];
- free (func_name);
+ xfree (func_name);
}
return oload_incompatible ? 100 : (oload_non_standard ? 10 : 0);