From: David Taylor <taylor@cygnus.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] regcache.c (register_fetched) + related changes
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:14:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200102282113.QAA18390@texas.cygnus.com> (raw)
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:38:30 -0500
David Taylor wrote:
> I propose that we:
>
> . add register_fetched
David,
The functionality of register_fetched() overlaps with
set_register_cached() and supply_register(). Rather than add a
redundant method, could an existing interface be used or the current
interfaces rationalized slightly?
Andrew,
Supply register does more than register_fetched; register_fetched only
affects register_valid -- the register must have been supplied via
some other method.
set_register_cached is -- with one exception -- only used within
regcache.c. The one exception is remote.c (remote_fetch_registers).
I feel that a function should be created (register_unavailable?) and
the call in remote.c to set_register_cached replaced with that call.
Then set_register_cached should be made static.
To call set_register_cached, you have to know what the meanings are of
the various possible values of register_valid. This is knowledge that
shouldn't really exist outside of regcache.c.
Keep in mind that the long term goal is to tighten regcache's interface
signficantly. That is, eliminate register_valid[], registers[] and
possibly even set_register_cached() replacing them with a small set of
functions such as:
supply_register()
supply_unavailable_register()
If you are thinking of proposing further changes then you may want to
keep that in mind.
My change advances the goal of eliminating register_valid! It reduces
significantly the number of files that even know that register_valid
exists! Outside of regcache.c, only two files would reference it (for
a total of three references). Those two files could also have their
references to it removed with a little bit more work.
With regard to regcache.h, yes the two clash. It both moves code around
and changes the set_register_cached() interface. If anything regcache.h
makes life easier because it is finally clear what the regcache
interfaces really are.
Andrew
What change is this that you are referring to? The message with subject
[rfc] Re-merged regcache.h patch
that you posted after the above message? I assume not, but if so...
. It does not move around code within regcache.c. It adds a comment
to regcache.c. I don't see that as a conflict with my patch.
. Yes, it adds a new header file regcache.h. A header file that is
long overdue. But, that does not affect the bulk of my patch. It
means that my one line change to gdbcore.h becomes instead a one
line change to regcache.h. Not a big deal -- I can change this
easily enough.
. The posted patch does not change the set_register_cached interface.
It does add a comment concerning the interface that conflicts with
reality:
+/* Character array containing the current state of each register
+ (unavailable<0, valid=0, invalid>0). */
but that is a problem with that patch, not with mine.
[Current reality is: unavailable<0, invalid=0, valid>0.]
David
next reply other threads:[~2001-02-28 13:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-02-28 13:14 David Taylor [this message]
2001-02-28 15:17 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-02-28 16:01 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-02-28 18:27 ` Andrew Cagney
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-03-01 16:59 David Taylor
2001-03-02 9:06 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-03-02 11:49 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-03-13 8:52 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-03-01 10:34 David Taylor
2001-03-01 14:07 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-02-27 15:27 David Taylor
2001-02-27 14:25 David Taylor
2001-02-27 14:48 ` Michael Snyder
2001-02-27 15:21 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-02-27 17:40 ` 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=200102282113.QAA18390@texas.cygnus.com \
--to=taylor@cygnus.com \
--cc=ac131313@cygnus.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