From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32228 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2008 19:48:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 32217 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Apr 2008 19:48:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtagate7.de.ibm.com (HELO mtagate7.de.ibm.com) (195.212.29.156) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:47:40 +0000 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate7.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m34Jla9P320256 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 19:47:36 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m34Jla6j2990294 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 21:47:36 +0200 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m34Jla74012764 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 21:47:36 +0200 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id m34JlagY012758; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 21:47:36 +0200 Message-Id: <200804041947.m34JlagY012758@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 4 Apr 2008 21:47:36 +0200 Subject: Re: [RFC 1/5] Lazy register values To: drow@false.org (Daniel Jacobowitz) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:00:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20080404192859.GA4910@caradoc.them.org> from "Daniel Jacobowitz" at Apr 04, 2008 03:28:59 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-04/txt/msg00111.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > I don't think that's what happens - value_contents -> > value_contents_writeable -> value_fetch_lazy. I figured the fetch at > this point was acceptable; we work hard to avoid fetching memory > because it might be large, but registers are better bounded. > Do you agree, or are the offsets worthwhile after all? Ah, I see. Yes, that looks fine to me then. > My plan is to wait until at least next week, in case anyone else > has comments; revise for comments; do as many other platforms as > I can test; and then start checking this in. I'll fix any other > platforms I'm asked to. I don't expect any substantial revisions, > in case you feel like getting a head start :-) OK :-) Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com