From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14457 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2003 17:30:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14442 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2003 17:30:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 216-239-45-4.google.com) (216.239.45.4) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Apr 2003 17:30:43 -0000 Received: from gpf168.corp.google.com (gpf168.corp.google.com [10.3.6.168]) by 216-239-45-4.google.com (8.12.9/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h3SHUXFw009232; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:30:33 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by gpf168.corp.google.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29209; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:30:33 -0700 Message-ID: <5b2d5d5e03042810304dda64ec@mail.google.com> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:06:00 -0000 From: Colin Smith To: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: Re: patch for printing 64-bit values in i386 registers; STABS format Cc: Andrew Cagney , Mark Kettenis , colins@google.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <20030425002744.GA9492@nevyn.them.org> <200304252121.h3PLLD8I000461@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <20030425213548.GA22505@nevyn.them.org> <3EA9B6AE.90001@redhat.com> <20030426015010.GA25355@nevyn.them.org> <3EA9F295.2090803@redhat.com> <20030426030534.GA26304@nevyn.them.org> <3EA9FDDF.8070205@redhat.com> <200304272203.h3RM35Ur016419@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <3EAD474C.6090403@redhat.com> <20030428153247.GA28501@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00527.txt.bz2 > > BTW, what happens when there is an attempt to write a long long value? > > GDB again assumes that it can write to contigious registers - the reason > > why REGISTER_BYTE can't be killed. > > That ugliness could go away too with Mark's introduced method. GDB > could be fixed to find the next register properly. I forgot about the write case. It seems to route through write_register_bytes, which is unfortunate because the register order problem is tougher to solve there. It might make more sense to avoid using write_register_bytes up in value_assign, having it iterate over the registers. Mark, could you pass along your patch? I might be able to use it. Thanks! _____ colin > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > MontaVistaSoftware Debian GNU/Linux Developer >