From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch rfc] Eliminate extract_address
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 18:20:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1030515182039.ZM13780@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> "Re: [patch rfc] Eliminate extract_address" (May 15, 12:49pm)
On May 15, 12:49pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > First, the return types are different. extract_address() returns
> > CORE_ADDR while extract_unsigned_integer returns ULONGEST. If
> > we were to encounter a scenario where this is a problem, it's easier
> > to fix a wrapper (extract_address()) instead of the myriad places in
> > the code which presently call extract_address(). (This point is
> > probably moot because I suspect we already have a lot of code which
> > assumes that CORE_ADDR may be interchanged with LONGEST or ULONGEST
> > anyway.)
>
> sizeof(CORE_ADDR) <= sizeof(ULONGEST) so this isn't a problem.
Do we have a gdb_assert() somewhere to ensure that this is the case?
(This could happen at initialization time...)
> > Second, having function calls to extract_address() provides
> > information to the reader that you don't get by having calls to
> > extract_unsigned_integer(). It tells the reader that we're expecting
> > to get an address and not an integer. This really helps when someone
> > reading gdb's code is wondering about what the thing is that's being
> > extracted.
>
> The extract_address function doesn't extract an address, it extracts an
> unsigned integer.
> On the MIPS, extract_address needs to sign extend. On the d10v, extract
> address needs to know the address space.
Yes, I understand that. Doing the substitution you propose will make
it more difficult to make the correct fix (of using extract_typed_address)
at a later time.
> If the code needs to extract an address it can use extract_typed_address
> which corectly handles all these cases.
Yes.
> Is it a good thing? It eliminates a lie.
At the expense of making the code marginally less comprehensible and
making it more difficult to identify the potential cases where
extract_typed_address() should be used instead.
Or have all of those cases already been identified? If so, then I
withdraw my objection. (Though I still like having "address" in the
function name to help to document what it is that's being extracted.)
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-05-15 18:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-05-14 12:10 Andrew Cagney
2003-05-14 16:42 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-05-15 16:49 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-05-15 18:20 ` Kevin Buettner [this message]
2003-05-15 19:03 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-05-21 16:20 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-05-21 16:41 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-05-22 17:50 ` Andrew Cagney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1030515182039.ZM13780@localhost.localdomain \
--to=kevinb@redhat.com \
--cc=ac131313@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox