Re: [patch rfc] Eliminate extract_address

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

> Can you explain why you doing
> 
>     s/extract_address/extract_unsigned_integer/
> 
> is a good thing?


> Perhaps this has been discussed already, but I see two drawbacks...
> 
> First, the return types are different.  extract_address() returns
> CORE_ADDR while extract_unsigned_integer returns ULONGEST.  If
> we were to encounter a scenario where this is a problem, it's easier
> to fix a wrapper (extract_address()) instead of the myriad places in
> the code which presently call extract_address().  (This point is
> probably moot because I suspect we already have a lot of code which
> assumes that CORE_ADDR may be interchanged with LONGEST or ULONGEST
> anyway.)

sizeof(CORE_ADDR) <= sizeof(ULONGEST) so this isn't a problem.

> Second, having function calls to extract_address() provides
> information to the reader that you don't get by having calls to
> extract_unsigned_integer().  It tells the reader that we're expecting
> to get an address and not an integer.  This really helps when someone
> reading gdb's code is wondering about what the thing is that's being
> extracted.

The extract_address function doesn't extract an address, it extracts an 
unsigned integer.
On the MIPS, extract_address needs to sign extend.  On the d10v, extract 
address needs to know the address space.

If the code needs to extract an address it can use extract_typed_address 
which corectly handles all these cases.

Is it a good thing?  It eliminates a lie.

enjoy,
Andrew