From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-69091-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 367 invoked by alias); 24 Dec 2009 18:51:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 359 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Dec 2009 18:51:01 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:50:57 +0000
Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.67.167]) 	by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14D21D02A; 	Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:50:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) 	by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2748E579; 	Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:50:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B33B73D.5090709@vmware.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:51:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20090624)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [ob] fix buf size in amd64_epilogue_frame_cache
References: <4B2E762E.7060302@vmware.com> <20091221043809.GM2788@adacore.com>
In-Reply-To: <20091221043809.GM2788@adacore.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg00389.txt.bz2

Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> 2009-12-20  Michael Snyder  <msnyder@vmware.com>
>>
>> 	* amd64-tdep.c (amd64_epilogue_frame_cache): Fix buf size.
> 
> I'm going to apply this patch to the gdb-7.0 branch as well.
> 
>> -  gdb_byte buf[4];
>> +  gdb_byte buf[8];
> 
> I think we should try to avoid using litteral constants like these,
> especially when we repeat that constant later.  For instance, in
> this case, we could have used register_size, or something similar...

I don't think there's a simple "register_size" constant.
There's a register_size function, but that's not a good way
to declare an array size.

There's MAX_REGISTER_SIZE, but that's 16.  A possibility.
If you've got a better suggestion...