Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 08:35:13AM -0700, Doug Evans wrote:
>> Hi.  At first I thought "Yikes!". :-)
>> But it turns out that all fetch_registers routines treat 0 and -1 equivalently.
>> I wouldn't hold up this patch (it's fine with me fwiw), though I would
>> change the ChangeLog entry to something like: "Use -1 instead of 0 to
>> fetch all registers." since passing 0 does actually fetch all
>> registers.
> 
> Agreed on all counts.
> 
>> It would be good to remove this oddity and stop the conflation of 0
>> and -1, but I don't know what would break.
>> We could run the testsuite and see what happens as a start.
>> Does anyone know the history behind this?
> 
> Pretty sure nothing will break - since nothing else calls these
> functions.  I could be mistaken though.
> 

Ok, this would be a more complete patch (with cleanups in 
spots where -1 and 0 are used interchangeably).

If you think it would be more appropriate to first commit 
regcache.c change only, and then the cleanup, let me know.




ChangeLog:

* linux-low.c (usr_fetch_inferior_registers): Remove check 
for regno 0.
* proc-service.c (ps_lgetregs): Pass -1 to fetch all registers.
* regcache.c (get_regcache): Likewise.
* spu-low.c (spu_fetch_registers): Remove 0 to -1 conversion.
* win32-low.c (child_fetch_inferior_registers): Remove check 
for regno 0.


-- 
Aleksandar Ristovski
QNX Software Systems


ChangeLog:

* linux-low.c (usr_fetch_inferior_registers): Remove check 
for regno 0.
* proc-service.c (ps_lgetregs): Pass -1 to fetch all registers.
* regcache.c (get_regcache): Likewise.
* spu-low.c (spu_fetch_registers): Remove 0 to -1 conversion.
* win32-low.c (child_fetch_inferior_registers): Remove check 
for regno 0.