Re: PING: Re: [PATCH] Print <unavailable> for unavailable registers

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 10/16/2013 03:26 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> On 18/09/2013 5:06 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> 
>>> Index: ./gdb/infcmd.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/infcmd.c,v
>>> retrieving revision 1.335
>>> diff -u -p -r1.335 infcmd.c
>>> --- ./gdb/infcmd.c	18 Sep 2013 14:02:31 -0000	1.335
>>> +++ ./gdb/infcmd.c	18 Sep 2013 14:43:13 -0000
>>> @@ -2030,7 +2030,8 @@ default_print_one_register_info (struct 
>>>  
>>>    if (!value_entirely_available (val))
>>>      {
>>> -      fprintf_filtered (file, "*value not available*\n");
>>> +      val_print_unavailable (file);
>>> +      fprintf_filtered (file, "\n");
>>>        return;
>>>      }
>>>    else if (value_optimized_out (val))
>>
>> Why do we do this instead of just deferring to val_print though?
>> val_print would be able to print partially available registers,
>> for instance.
>>
>> (We'd need to do something about the "raw" printing bits below
>> though.)
> 
> OK that's a reasonable point.  I've rewritten this patch to make use
> of the val_print call to print the <not-saved> / <unavailable>.
> 
> For now I unconditionally skip the second attempt to print the value,
> the "raw" form, for optimized-out and unavailable values, we might
> be able to do better in the future but I was keen to avoid output
> like this: "rax:  <unavailable> <unavailable>" with the
> <unavailable> being repeated.  If the value of a register is
> partially unavailable, and so we did manage to print something then
> it might make sense to try and print the raw form... 

Yeah, we could print some character like UU or XX or $$ or some such
for the unavailable bytes, for example, like, say, printing
a 32-bit var:

  <unavailable>   0011UUUU

> 
> Is this OK to apply?

OK.

Thanks,
-- 
Pedro Alves