From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24372 invoked by alias); 15 May 2003 18:20:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24290 invoked from network); 15 May 2003 18:20:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 May 2003 18:20:47 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4FIKlH12441 for ; Thu, 15 May 2003 14:20:47 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4FIKkI01248; Thu, 15 May 2003 14:20:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-3.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.3]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4FIKjQ11116; Thu, 15 May 2003 14:20:45 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4FIKei13781; Thu, 15 May 2003 11:20:40 -0700 Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 18:20:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1030515182039.ZM13780@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [patch rfc] Eliminate extract_address" (May 15, 12:49pm) References: <3EC23225.4090605@redhat.com> <1030514164201.ZM9355@localhost.localdomain> <3EC3C50F.1060700@redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney Subject: Re: [patch rfc] Eliminate extract_address Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00246.txt.bz2 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