Re: [PATCH]: Don't use deprecated regcache functions

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>]

David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:25:01 -0700
> 
> 
>>David S. Miller wrote:
>>
>>>From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
>>>Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:00:57 -0400
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 01:39:09AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Otherwise, ok to apply?
>>>>
>>>>>-      deprecated_read_register_gen (regno, raw);
>>>>>+      regcache_raw_collect (current_regcache, regno, raw);
>>>>>      thread_db_fetch_registers (-1);
>>>>>      regcache_raw_supply (current_regcache, regno, raw);
>>>>
>>>>I might be mistaken, but what the heck does the call to
>>>>thread_db_fetch_registers accomplish?  I think nothing.
>>
>>Daniel, David's got the right of it.
> 
> Ok to apply? :-)

Well, I meant your explanation as to why thread_db_fetch_registers
was used.  Now that I look at the actual change...

Why did you pick register_raw_collect as the replacement?
It's not semantically equivalent.  I would have thought
that the least-intrusive, most semantically-neutral change
would have been to use regcache_cooked_read.

That doesn't mean I think it's more or less correct...
I get confused just thinking about all these variants.
If you have an argument for why one is more correct in
this context, I'm certainly open to it.  I can't really
convince myself that the current behavior is correct,
since deprecated_read_register_gen calls regcache_cooked_read,
which may call regcache_raw_read, which may call
target_fetch_registers *before* capturing the current value.
Which it seems like would defeat the purpose of the whole
exercise...