Re: [cagney_convert-20030606-branch] Add value to REGISTER_TO_VALUE et.al.

[Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>]

   Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 18:10:29 -0400
   From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>

   Ok,  I've changed the branch to:

   > The ``obvious'' interfaces were:
   > 
   > register_to_value (frame, regnum, type, buffer)
   > value_to_register (frame, regnum, type, buffer)

And what do these functions do if the register is unavailable in a
certain frame?  That shouldn't happen if we have complete debug
information, but unfortunately we almost certainly don't have that.
Should this be reported to the user or not?  Should we set
VALUE_OPTIMIZED_OUT, just as we do for registers that don't need
conversion?  If so, we probably need a return value that indicates
whether the conversion was successfull.

   > but that tripped up on something (now what ...?).  Dig dig.
   > Notice how, to preserve existing behavior,
   > legacy_register_to_value saves the location based on what
   > frame_register returns.  We'd have to switch to
   > lval_reg_frame_relative.

   And this time it appears to be going better.  I'll try to attribute it 
   to VALUE_FRAME_ID and the use of put_frame_register (neither of which I 
   did last time).

Great!

Mark