This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: The ari hits
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:56:40PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 05:09:46PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >>Daniel,
> >>
> >>The files you recently committed trip the ARI. Can you please check
> >>this out.
> >>
> >>Andrew
> >>
> >>http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/current/ari/
> >
> >
> >Thanks for reminding me; this patch fixes them. Almost obvious except
> >for a bit that I want your opinion on - the hint on the ARI
> >says to use register_size but I'm not convinced that's right. Is
> >gdbarch_register_size always big enough that I don't need to use
> >gdbarch_register_raw_size?
>
> You're correct, however, so is the comment - use register_size() (not
> gdbarch_register_size). The problem is that I forgot to add that
> function to regcache.[ch] :-( I've just done this.
>
> There is also a bigger problem here. Because some targets still have
> differring raw and cooked register sizes (read MIPS), things get messy.
>
> frame_register() returns a `cooked' register value so, for the moment,
> I'd use:
>
> REGISTER_VIRTUAL_SIZE (...) /* OK */
>
> (the ``/* OK */'' gags the ARI) and add a comment.
>
> sorry about this,
That makes a lot more sense now, thank you! I just assumed you were
implying the gdbarch_ prefix.
Here's another question, though. frame_register may return a cooked
value, but frame_saved_regs_register_unwind uses a buffer of
REGISTER_RAW_SIZE. Is using REGISTER_VIRTUAL_SIZE in core code really
safe?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer