From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
To: Jonathan Larmour <jifl@eCosCentric.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: powerpc remote target registers
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:11:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3FCF4EA0.2030803@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3FCEE306.5050604@eCosCentric.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2268 bytes --]
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> But then the registers aren't marked as cached at all, so they're now requested from the target each time you do "info all-registers", even though they come up with 0s. Should I pretend the registers not supplied by the target were 0, or should I mark them as unavailable (i.e. the same as what having an "x" does) so at least it's consistent?
>
>
> Ah, they should be supplied but with a value of zero. The protocol (for historic reasons) specifies that a short G packet should have the missing entries treated as zero (like you intended).
>
> Good, in which case the attached patch (against 6.0) should do it. Mostly indent changes, boringly enough.
>
>
> 2003-12-04 Jonathan Larmour <jifl@eCosCentric.com>
>
> * remote.c (remote_fetch_registers): If target doesn't supply
> registers, set them to zero.
>
> Thanks,
Try the attached, its basicly the same but with a few not very obvious
tweaks: supply_register is actually deprecated (but you couldn't tell
:-); ->offset is really only valid when ->in_g_packet; avoids an
assuption about the total size of the buffer and the behavior of get packet.
I think I got the logic right.
Andrew
(PS: paperwork sent)
> --- remote.c.old 2003-12-02 03:05:46.000000000 +0000
> +++ remote.c 2003-12-04 07:19:38.000000000 +0000
> @@ -3498,19 +3498,31 @@ remote_fetch_registers (int regnum)
> warning ("Remote reply is too short: %s", buf);
> }
>
> supply_them:
> {
> - int i;
> + int i, end_targ_regs=0;
> for (i = 0; i < NUM_REGS + NUM_PSEUDO_REGS; i++)
> {
> struct packet_reg *r = &rs->regs[i];
> +
> + if (buf[r->offset * 2] == 0)
> + end_targ_regs = 1; /* end of registers supplied by target */
> if (r->in_g_packet)
> {
> - supply_register (r->regnum, regs + r->offset);
> - if (buf[r->offset * 2] == 'x')
> - set_register_cached (i, -1);
> + if (end_targ_regs)
> + {
> + /* If the target hasn't sent enough registers, set
> + the remainder to 0. */
> + supply_register (r->regnum, 0);
> + }
> + else
> + {
> + supply_register (r->regnum, regs + r->offset);
> + if (buf[r->offset * 2] == 'x')
> + set_register_cached (i, -1);
> + }
> }
> }
> }
> }
>
[-- Attachment #2: diffs --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1455 bytes --]
2003-12-04 Andrew Cagney <cagney@redhat.com>
* remote.c (remote_fetch_registers): For short packets, explicitly
supply a zero value. Use regcache_raw_supply. Fix suggested by
Jonathan Larmour.
Index: remote.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/remote.c,v
retrieving revision 1.122
diff -u -r1.122 remote.c
--- remote.c 10 Nov 2003 21:20:44 -0000 1.122
+++ remote.c 4 Dec 2003 15:05:49 -0000
@@ -3558,9 +3558,23 @@
struct packet_reg *r = &rs->regs[i];
if (r->in_g_packet)
{
- supply_register (r->regnum, regs + r->offset);
- if (buf[r->offset * 2] == 'x')
- set_register_cached (i, -1);
+ if (r->offset * 2 >= strlen (buf))
+ /* A short packet that didn't include the register's
+ value, this implies that the register is zero (and
+ not that the register is unavailable). Supply that
+ zero value. */
+ regcache_raw_supply (current_regcache, r->regnum, NULL);
+ else if (buf[r->offset * 2] == 'x')
+ {
+ gdb_assert (r->offset * 2 < strlen (buf));
+ /* The register isn't available, mark it as such (at
+ the same time setting the value to zero). */
+ regcache_raw_supply (current_regcache, r->regnum, NULL);
+ set_register_cached (i, -1);
+ }
+ else
+ regcache_raw_supply (current_regcache, r->regnum,
+ regs + r->offset);
}
}
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-12-04 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-11-29 2:07 Jonathan Larmour
2003-12-01 18:52 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-12-02 5:23 ` Jonathan Larmour
2003-12-03 4:23 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-12-04 7:32 ` Jonathan Larmour
2003-12-04 15:11 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2003-12-06 22:08 ` Jonathan Larmour
2003-12-06 22:58 ` 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=3FCF4EA0.2030803@gnu.org \
--to=cagney@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=jifl@eCosCentric.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