From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
To: pedro@codesourcery.com (Pedro Alves)
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, brobecker@adacore.com (Joel Brobecker)
Subject: Re: New ARI warning Sat Mar 19 01:54:11 UTC 2011
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:32:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201103241554.p2OFsZew022704@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201103231742.17098.pedro@codesourcery.com> from "Pedro Alves" at Mar 23, 2011 05:42:16 PM
Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 March 2011 17:16:01, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > > This was a large diff, but in fact, there is only one new warning:
> > >
> > > > gdb/i386-tdep.c:1693: obsolete: frame_register_read: Replace frame_register_read() with get_frame_register(), or possibly introduce a new method safe_get_frame_register()
> > > gdb/i386-tdep.c:1693: && frame_register_read (this_frame, cache->saved_sp_reg, buf))
> >
> > I just had a look at this ARI warning. The comment on
> > frame_register_read says:
> >
> > /* FIXME: cagney/2003-02-02: Should be deprecated or replaced with a
> > function called get_frame_register_p(). This slightly weird (and
> > older) variant of get_frame_register() returns zero (indicating the
> > register value is unavailable/invalid) if either: the register
> > isn't cached; or the register has been optimized out; or the
> > register contents are unavailable (because they haven't been
> > collected in a traceframe). Problem is, neither check is exactly
> > correct. A register can't be optimized out (it may not have been
> > saved as part of a function call); The fact that a register isn't
> > in the register cache doesn't mean that the register isn't
> > available (it could have been fetched from memory). */
> >
> > I have had this feeling that we have way too many ways to read/write
> > frame registers, but I'm wondering if this comment might not be
> > too zealous in this case. This function seems useful, because it
> > returns a status as opposed to get_frame_register, which has the exact
> > same profile except that it throws instead of returning. So I'm thinking
> > we should remove the "deprecation" fixme, and just keep the FIXME for
> > fixing whatever incorrectness might be left, and then remove this from
> > the ARI.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Agreed.
I think that all users that require this additional status information
should just use the (new) get_frame_register_value, and look at that
value's properties.
So I do think that frame_register_read ought to stay deprecated;
we need to remove those extraneous frame register routines ...
Bye,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-24 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-19 17:32 GDB Administrator
2011-03-19 21:14 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-03-23 17:42 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-03-23 18:21 ` Pedro Alves
2011-03-24 18:32 ` Ulrich Weigand [this message]
2011-03-25 16:05 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-03-25 19:19 ` Ulrich Weigand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201103241554.p2OFsZew022704@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com \
--to=uweigand@de.ibm.com \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=pedro@codesourcery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox