From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8028 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2002 20:01:39 -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 8019 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2002 20:01:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 2002 20:01:38 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 746F13D9E; Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:01:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D62A021.9040700@ges.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:01:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020810 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc,RFA:doco] STORE_RETURN_VALUE with regcache References: <3D618F65.3000108@ges.redhat.com> <86lm71e6g9.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00612.txt.bz2 > Andrew Cagney writes: > > >> Hello, >> >> The attached patch ``upgrades'' STORE_RETURN_VALUE so that it includes >> the register cache in which the value should be stored (it was using the >> current global register cache). > > > Looks good to me. However, patches like this one break pure > multi-arch targets that are converted to use the non-deprecated > variants of these functions if they don't fill in the deprecated > function in their gdbarch too. > > My idea for fixing this is illustrated by the following patch, but > perhaps there is a more elegant way to do this? Hmm, yes, the logic is messed up for this case. I'll think about it some more with your patch. > It also makes the buffer parameters ``[const] void *'' which is more >> like most other architecture methods. > > > I noticed that you have been introducing bfd_byte in several of your > recent patches. Why's this better than using char? Just ``char'' is dangerous as it could be signed or unsigned. I've typically found that ``unsigned char'' is what is needed wanted. I just stumbled across bfd_byte (typedef unsigned char) so have picked that up as a byte type. Doesn't worry me. enjoy, Andrew