Re: New gdb 31 & 64 bit patches for S/390

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

DJB,

The patches included the change:

2001-02-26  D.J. Barrow <djbarrow@de.ibm.com,barrow_dj@yahoo.com>

	* core-aout.c added check for CANNOT_FETCH_REGISTER
	in fetch_core_registers.

--- src.orig/gdb/core-aout.c	Sun Jul 30 03:48:24 2000
+++ src.new/gdb/core-aout.c	Tue Feb 27 17:36:35 2001
@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@
    int bad_reg = -1;
    CORE_ADDR reg_ptr = -reg_addr;	/* Original u.u_ar0 is -reg_addr. */
    int numregs = ARCH_NUM_REGS;
+  char *buf=alloca(MAX_REGISTER_RAW_SIZE);

    /* If u.u_ar0 was an absolute address in the core file, relativize 
it now,
       so we can use it as an offset into core_reg_sect.  When we're done,
@@ -93,12 +94,20 @@

    for (regno = 0; regno < numregs; regno++)
      {
-      addr = CORE_REGISTER_ADDR (regno, reg_ptr);
-      if (addr >= core_reg_size
- 
   && bad_reg < 0)
- 
bad_reg = regno;
+       if (CANNOT_FETCH_REGISTER (regno))
+ 
{
+ 
   memset (buf, '\0', REGISTER_RAW_SIZE (regno));	/* Supply zeroes */
+ 
   supply_register (regno, buf);
+ 
}
        else
- 
supply_register (regno, core_reg_sect + addr);
+ 
{
+ 
   addr = CORE_REGISTER_ADDR (regno, reg_ptr);
+ 
   if (addr >= core_reg_size
+ 
       && bad_reg < 0)
+ 
     bad_reg = regno;
+ 
   else
+ 
     supply_register (regno, core_reg_sect + addr);
+ 
}
      }

    if (bad_reg >= 0)

Can you please expand on this change.  I don't think it is s390 specific.

	Andrew