Re: RFA: assert that target_fetch_registers did its job

[Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>]

Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org> writes:
> I'll disable this while we sort things out.  I've just hit another
> system (PPC/NetBSD) that panics.
> 
> While requiring that the inferior always `supply' a register appears
> reasonable (and I agree with the theory) it turns out we don't have
> the mechanisms for indicating all the possible supplied register
> states (see below) and the implementors of the supply code didn't
> realise that was part of the contract :-(
>
> I think we can also just as effectively (and not as fatally :-) use
> the testsuite and something based on ``maint print cooked-registers''
> (it will need to print state info) to detect mis-behaving inferior
> code.

Yeah, I think this is probably best.  I hadn't expected this much
unravelling when I tugged on that little thread.  :)

It seems pretty clear that some of the consumers of register contents
need to become more sophisticated.  But that will necessarily be a
more gradual process.