From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28706 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2007 04:13:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 28698 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Oct 2007 04:13:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:13:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 656E42AB067 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:12:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id b0-IvFklatOU for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:12:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1FCB2AB065 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:12:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5BF37E7AC8; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:19:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Tighten meaning of gdbarch_convert_register_p Message-ID: <20071019041209.GA6180@adacore.com> References: <20071017140308.GA15513@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071017140308.GA15513@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00449.txt.bz2 Note to the other maintainers: I feel I need to say this once, and then I'll stop saying it. I'm trying to help more in the design decisions, but I still have a long way to go. My goal right now is to look at as many design discussions as time allows me, and try to think about it. For a little while, if it touches areas I've never really worked on, chances are I won't have much to say about it. Nonetheless, I think that it is still helpful to say that I have looked at it and saw nothing wrong with it. I'll probably get burnt a number of times, but I'll learn, and hopefully you'll appreciate the fact that someone looked at your work, and thought it looked good. Just take my comments with a grain of salt for now ;-). > This patch tightens the definition of gdbarch_convert_register_p so > that a non-zero result means that a conversion is necessary for the > supplied TYPE, not just that one might be necessary for some type. > This let me add an assertion that gdbarch_register_convert_p was > zero for any unwound register values in the new value-based unwinding > that I wrote yesterday. [...] > > What do you think? This looks like a good idea to me - I can see how this simplifies a bit your other patch (using values in unwind). It complicates a bit gdbarch_register_convert_p, but really not all that much, and it should simplify the conversion methods in return. -- Joel