From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7987 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2003 17:59:43 -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 7980 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2003 17:59:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 28 Feb 2003 17:59:42 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18oqgd-0006KN-00; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:00:52 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18oonL-0003R4-00; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:59:39 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:59:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: The ari hits Message-ID: <20030228175939.GA13177@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3E5E8CAA.1080304@redhat.com> <20030228015238.GA17237@nevyn.them.org> <3E5FA2D8.3020706@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E5FA2D8.3020706@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00823.txt.bz2 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