From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5055 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2005 11:41:08 -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 5046 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jun 2005 11:41:01 -0000 Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 04 Jun 2005 11:41:01 +0000 Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p72-tnt1.snap.net.nz [202.124.110.72]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C47E539A3F; Sat, 4 Jun 2005 23:40:57 +1200 (NZST) Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 501) id EFBA462A99; Sat, 4 Jun 2005 12:41:20 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17057.37727.725621.254956@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 11:41:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] -data-list-changed-registers In-Reply-To: <20050603223652.GA8203@nevyn.them.org> References: <17053.38913.487990.775198@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050603191326.GA538@nevyn.them.org> <17056.56149.181259.513462@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050603223652.GA8203@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 > I think the changes are right in this case, though. Could you take a > look at those two functions (the change to make is obvious) and see if > that fixes your problem? If you mean the changes below, then these seem fine and give: (gdb) -data-list-changed-registers &"No registers.\n" ^error,msg="No registers." (gdb) I have presumed that similarly this is wrong: (gdb) -data-list-register-values x ^error,msg="mi_cmd_data_list_register_values: No registers." (gdb) and removed the same error check (if (!target_has_registers)...) so that this also gives: (gdb) -data-list-register-values x &"No registers.\n" ^error,msg="No registers." (gdb) mi_cmd_data_write_register_values has the same error check. Should I remove this too? Nick *** /home/nick/src/gdb/mi/mi-main.c.~1.78.~ 2005-05-27 12:27:29.000000000 +1200 --- /home/nick/src/gdb/mi/mi-main.c 2005-06-04 23:34:21.000000000 +1200 *************** *** 388,394 **** { gdb_byte raw_buffer[MAX_REGISTER_SIZE]; ! if (! frame_register_read (deprecated_selected_frame, regnum, raw_buffer)) return -1; if (memcmp (&old_regs[DEPRECATED_REGISTER_BYTE (regnum)], raw_buffer, --- 388,394 ---- { gdb_byte raw_buffer[MAX_REGISTER_SIZE]; ! if (! frame_register_read (get_selected_frame (NULL), regnum, raw_buffer)) return -1; if (memcmp (&old_regs[DEPRECATED_REGISTER_BYTE (regnum)], raw_buffer, *************** *** 433,444 **** format = (int) argv[0][0]; - if (!target_has_registers) - { - mi_error_message = xstrprintf ("mi_cmd_data_list_register_values: No registers."); - return MI_CMD_ERROR; - } - list_cleanup = make_cleanup_ui_out_list_begin_end (uiout, "register-values"); if (argc == 1) /* No args, beside the format: do all the regs */ --- 433,438 ---- *************** *** 509,515 **** if (format == 'N') format = 0; ! frame_register (deprecated_selected_frame, regnum, &optim, &lval, &addr, &realnum, buffer); if (optim) --- 503,509 ---- if (format == 'N') format = 0; ! frame_register (get_selected_frame (NULL), regnum, &optim, &lval, &addr, &realnum, buffer); if (optim)