Re: Assuming types for PC

On 06/10/2013 04:31 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:19:22 +0200
>> From: Luis Machado <[email protected]>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I see gdb.base/ptype.exp assuming PC needs to be of type void (*)().
>>
>>     # Test ptype of user register
>>     gdb_test "ptype \$pc" "void \\(\\*\\)\\(\\)" "ptype \$pc"
>>
>> Is there any reason we should assume that? Some targets use "long long"
>> or "int32_t" for PC.
>
> I consider that to be a bug.  Fixing that bug turned out to be
> somewhat difficult on some architectures that have a 32-bit/64-bit
> identity crisis; see the x32 discussions from last year.

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?