From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: NULL selected/current frame; Was: [patch/rfc] Add frame_read_signed/unsigned_register(); convert h8300 to print_registers_info()
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:48:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3DB6D2BD.3040708@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20021023152153.GA9628@nevyn.them.org>
>> void
>> +frame_read_unsigned_register (struct frame_info *frame, int regnum,
>> + ULONGEST *val)
>> +{
>> + frame_unwind_unsigned_register (get_next_frame (frame), regnum, val);
>> +}
>
>
> So, the register belonging to this frame.
Yes. The old roughly equivalent function was get_saved_register.
> That means the register
> which would be in the hardware registers if this frame were current,
> right?
To be pedantic, no. A frame's registers are ALWAYS found by unwinding
get_next_frame(FRAME). It just so happens that registers unwound from
get_next_frame(current_frame) come from the register cache.
The difference is subtle but important. current_frame isn't the special
case, get_next_frame(current_frame) is. Unfortunatly much of the GDB
code treated ``current_frame'' as special creating unnecessary
complexity and ongoing confusion. Per generic_unwind_get_saved_register():
/* Reached the the bottom (youngest, inner most) of the frame chain
(youngest, inner most) frame, go direct to the hardware register
cache (do not pass go, do not try to cache the value, ...). The
unwound value would have been cached in frame->next but that
doesn't exist. This doesn't matter as the hardware register
cache is stopping any unnecessary accesses to the target. */
/* NOTE: cagney/2002-04-14: It would be nice if, instead of a
special case, there was always an inner frame dedicated to the
hardware registers. Unfortunatly, there is too much unwind code
around that looks up/down the frame chain while making the
assumption that each frame level is using the same unwind code. */
> Should we allow NULL to imply the current frame?
Definitly no :-)
There is a bit of dogma here - there is always a frame. The above
should not be called with NULL. Code that calls this checks that
selected_frame != NULL. I'll add a ``gdb_assert (frame != NULL)'' and a
comment to that effect.
As for get_next_frame(FRAME), if that returns NULL, we've fallen off the
inner most frame and should get the register value from the register
cache. (Oh, while get_next_frame(current_frame) will always return
NULL, there may come a time when current_frame->next does not :-).
enjoy,
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-10-23 16:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-22 20:00 Andrew Cagney
2002-10-23 8:21 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-10-23 9:48 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2002-10-23 9:50 ` NULL selected/current frame; Was: " Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-10-31 12:11 ` [patch/rfc] Add frame_read_signed/unsigned_register() Andrew Cagney
2002-10-31 12:24 ` [patch] Convert h8300 to print_registers_info() Andrew Cagney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3DB6D2BD.3040708@redhat.com \
--to=ac131313@redhat.com \
--cc=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox