From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10925 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2002 22:13:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10913 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2002 22:13:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 2002 22:13:06 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B5FC3CB2; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 18:13:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D20D3EF.90403@ges.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 15:13:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020613 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Aaron J. Grier" Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: write_register_bytes() confusion References: <20020701122039.Q12218@aaron.internal> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00016.txt.bz2 > I'm in the middle of bringing BDM for m68k support into current gdb, and > while I have fixed the most blatant calling convention changes (pid > changing to pid_t, etc) write_register_bytes() in regcache has got me > horribly confused. (BDM being a target (or backend) to GDB.) > not to mention all this m68k craziness happening elsewhere. ;) > > in v1.61 of valops.c (which appears to be current) there is the snippet: > > write_register_bytes (VALUE_ADDRESS (toval) + VALUE_OFFSET (toval), > VALUE_CONTENTS (fromval), TYPE_LENGTH (type)); > > I'm writing a register -- it seems in my case this should be: > > write_register_bytes (VALUE_REGNO (toval), VALUE_CONTENTS (fromval), 1); > > the 1 of course is machine dependent The above code behaves as per the designers intent. The ADDRESS is an offset into registers[] array. However, GDB is trying to move away from that mechanism and more towards something like what you describe. > what I'm seeing is the register number getting completely thrashed on > the way through. > > yet all calls to write_register_bytes are using VALUE_ADDRESS? > > insane. I'm starting to think I need to back off -current and just > stick with gdb-5.0... An up-to-date target backend should only be using: supply_register() regcache_collect() it should not contain code that refers to registers[]. enjoy, Andrew