From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9125 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2003 03:14:55 -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 9118 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2003 03:14:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 2 Mar 2003 03:14:54 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18pLpV-0000YI-00 for ; Sat, 01 Mar 2003 23:16:05 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18pJwD-0003hC-00 for ; Sat, 01 Mar 2003 22:14:53 -0500 Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 03:14:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: The ari hits Message-ID: <20030302031453.GA13768@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3E5E8CAA.1080304@redhat.com> <20030228015238.GA17237@nevyn.them.org> <3E5FA2D8.3020706@redhat.com> <20030228175939.GA13177@nevyn.them.org> <3E616656.5020500@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E616656.5020500@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 09:03:02PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >> 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? > > Hmm, no, sorry. It's the value_of_register() value_from_register() code > that plays with virtual_size, not frame_register() et.al. > > On the bright side, this means that it can use register_size() as that, > when given a choice, should return the raw size. Thanks, that makes sense. I'll fix up the patch and commit tomorrow. By the way, in register_size(): gdb_assert (size == REGISTER_RAW_SIZE (regnum)); /* OK */ gdb_assert (size == REGISTER_RAW_SIZE (regnum)); /* OK */ They're both OK, but I suspect one of them is wrong anyway :) -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer