Re: The ari hits

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:56:40PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 05:09:46PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >>Daniel,
> >>
> >>The files you recently committed trip the ARI.  Can you please check 
> >>this out.
> >>
> >>Andrew
> >>
> >>http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/current/ari/
> >
> >
> >Thanks for reminding me; this patch fixes them.  Almost obvious except
> >for a bit that I want your opinion on - the hint on the ARI
> >says to use register_size but I'm not convinced that's right.  Is
> >gdbarch_register_size always big enough that I don't need to use
> >gdbarch_register_raw_size?
> 
> You're correct, however, so is the comment - use register_size() (not 
> gdbarch_register_size).  The problem is that I forgot to add that 
> function to regcache.[ch] :-(  I've just done this.
> 
> There is also a bigger problem here.  Because some targets still have 
> differring raw and cooked register sizes (read MIPS), things get messy.
> 
> frame_register() returns a `cooked' register value so, for the moment, 
> I'd use:
> 
> 	REGISTER_VIRTUAL_SIZE (...) /* OK */
> 
> (the ``/* OK */'' gags the ARI) and add a comment.
> 
> sorry about this,

That makes a lot more sense now, thank you!  I just assumed you were
implying the gdbarch_ prefix.

Here's another question, though.  frame_register may return a cooked
value, but frame_saved_regs_register_unwind uses a buffer of
REGISTER_RAW_SIZE.  Is using REGISTER_VIRTUAL_SIZE in core code really
safe?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer