> On Aug 12,  4:12pm, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> 
>> > I think the change is ok (i386 shows no regressions, the mips doesn't 
>> > use this code :-).  I'm just wondering about the names.  Perhaps: 
>> > regcache_cooked_read_signed() & regcache_cooked_read_unsigned()?
>> > 
>> > thoughts?
> 
>> 
>> Hmm, I like _read_signed and _read_unsigned... the _as_longest bit is
>> implicit.
> 
> 
> I agree with Daniel.

Good enough for me.

I took the liberty of revising the exact interface.  It uses a reference 
parameter, rather than function return, when passing back the result. 
The comment:

+/* NOTE: cagney/2002-08-13: At present GDB has no reliable mechanism
+   for indicating when a ``cooked'' register was constructed from
+   invalid or unavailable ``raw'' registers.  One fairly easy way of
+   adding such a mechanism would be for the cooked functions to return
+   a register valid indication.  Given the possibility of such a
+   change, the extract functions below use a reference parameter,
+   rather than a function result.  */

explains why.  I should note that this is a somewhat pervasive problem 
in GDB, there are few checks to ensure that a register is valid and 
those that do, check the raw register cache :-(

enjoy,
Andrew