From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19809 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2006 18:58:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 19799 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2006 18:58:22 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:58:21 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3DIwJjZ009101; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:58:19 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k3DIwIpA030496; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:58:19 -0400 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k3DIwHTq032302; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:58:17 -0400 Message-ID: <443E9F48.4030308@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:58:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David S. Miller" CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Don't use deprecated regcache functions References: <443D540D.2050902@redhat.com> <20060412.180948.72680402.davem@davemloft.net> <443DBA66.6050409@redhat.com> <20060412.210543.123363581.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20060412.210543.123363581.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00168.txt.bz2 David S. Miller wrote: > From: Michael Snyder > Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:41:42 -0700 > > >>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... > > > Any of these arguments for or against apply to the Solaris thread code > which does use regcache_raw_read() in this same exact situation. > Oh, I see -- you did mention that you were emulating that code, but I didn't read thoroughly -- I thought you were only referring to the fetch_registers call. Well, I'm gonna plead ignorance, then. I don't know enough to say whether the change is correct or not. Daniel? Mark?