Re: RFA: Remove D10V-specific code from arch-independent modules

[Jim Blandy <jimb at zwingli dot cygnus dot com>]

This patch is withdrawn for revision; see below.

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
> > +     struct type *code_ptr_type;
> 
> 
> should this be a builtin_type?  GDB has:
> 
> 
> > /* Address/pointer types: */
> > /* (C) Language pointer type. Some target platforms use an implicitly
> > {sign,zero} -extended 32 bit C language pointer on a 64 bit ISA. */
> > extern struct type *builtin_type_ptr;
> 
> I think having:
> 
>    extern struct type *builtin_type_data_ptr;
>    extern struct type *builtin_type_{func,insn,???}_ptr;
> 
> would make more sense.  It would also eliminate the need for the hack:
> 
> > !   /* We can't create this type until the D10V gdbarch object has been
> > !      made current, or else the size will be wrong.  This means we
> > !      can't initialize it in d10v_gdbarch_init.  So we do it here, the
> > !      first time we need it.  */
> > !   if (! tdep->code_ptr_type)
> > !     tdep->code_ptr_type
> > !       = lookup_pointer_type (lookup_function_type (builtin_type_void));
> > ! 

Yes.  I've submitted another patch that does this.  


> The s/D10V_MAKE_IADDR/d10v_make_iaddr/ et.al. applied to d10v-tdep.c can 
> go straight in as an obvious fix.  This should make the final patch a 
> lot smaller :-)

Yes.  I've committed a change that does this.


> The convert to/from virtual/raw register functions are borderline 
> deprecated.  They are being replaced by the much simpler functions 
> gdbarch_register_{read,write}.  If, for the d10v, those conversion 
> functions are being eliminated then I'd just delete them.

The D10V no longer has any convertible registers, so those functions
certainly should never be called.  I just assumed I'd get a gdbarch
error if I didn't provide some value for them.  Are you saying I can
just delete the set_gdbarch_* calls altogether, and the dummy
functions they register?  (I guess since the corresponding macros are
optional, that would make sense...)


> Once I've got a more concrete feel for the change (the examples) I'll go 
> back through this.

Thanks for looking it over!