From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12482 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2011 16:25:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 12461 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Mar 2011 16:25:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,SPF_SOFTFAIL,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtagate5.uk.ibm.com (HELO mtagate5.uk.ibm.com) (194.196.100.165) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:25:21 +0000 Received: from d06nrmr1806.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1806.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.39.193]) by mtagate5.uk.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p2PGPHRk021546 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:25:17 GMT Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by d06nrmr1806.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p2PGPlBU1655024 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:25:47 GMT Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p2PGPH6X010645 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:25:17 -0600 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with SMTP id p2PGPFHa010624; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:25:15 -0600 Message-Id: <201103251625.p2PGPFHa010624@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 25 Mar 2011 17:25:15 +0100 Subject: Re: New ARI warning Sat Mar 19 01:54:11 UTC 2011 To: brobecker@adacore.com (Joel Brobecker) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:19:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: pedro@codesourcery.com (Pedro Alves), gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20110325155535.GP2520@adacore.com> from "Joel Brobecker" at Mar 25, 2011 08:55:35 AM 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: 2011-03/txt/msg01102.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker wrote: > > 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. Oh, frame_register_read is already implemented in terms of get_frame_register_value (well, frame_unwind_register_value really, but that's the same thing). I agree that the goal should be to push that implementation up to the callers, and get rid of the buffer-based accessors. Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com