From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23280 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2011 15:55:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 23251 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Mar 2011 15:55:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:55:50 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A7622BB35F; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:55:50 -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 oMhMOmXjBK-7; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA52C2BB126; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:55:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A1A091459BD; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 08:55:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:05:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: New ARI warning Sat Mar 19 01:54:11 UTC 2011 Message-ID: <20110325155535.GP2520@adacore.com> References: <201103231742.17098.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201103241554.p2OFsZew022704@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201103241554.p2OFsZew022704@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-03/txt/msg01097.txt.bz2 > 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 ... Pedro, if you agree, I'll add a comment to that effect next to frame_register_read. Alternatively, we could try to reimplement frame_register_read using get_frame_register_value, although I get the impression that we wanted to start getting away from reading into buffers. -- Joel