From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14877 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2003 19:12:08 -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 14796 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2003 19:12:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (62.163.169.212) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Jun 2003 19:12:05 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p2/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h5DJBwTN000380; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:11:58 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h5DJBw1u000849; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:11:58 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p2/8.12.6/Submit) id h5DJBw5V000846; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:11:58 +0200 (CEST) To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch rfc] Revamp REGISTER_TO_VALUE et.al. References: <3EE9F5CB.6050007@redhat.com> <20030613160954.GA4780@nevyn.them.org> From: Mark Kettenis Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:12:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:09:54 -0400" Message-ID: <86he6tzta9.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00475.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 12:03:23PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This is the final revamped REGISTER_TO_VALUE patch. > > > > It adds a frame to REGISTER_TO_VALUE and VALUE_TO_REGISTER making them > > responsible for fetching/storing the value's raw buffer. > > > > It also adds a type parameter to CONVERT_REGISTER_P so that it can > > better filter what should be converted. > > > > I'll look to commit in a few days, doco to follow. > > > > Did anyone have better test cases? > > I haven't checked, but gdb/214 might do... I'm not sure whether the sample code in gdb/214 has anything to add to the stuff that's already tested by gdb.base/store.exp. It suffers from the same problem as those test in that it is highly dependent on the compiler you use whether a variable is stored in a register or not. The only really reliable test I can imagine is hand-coded assembler :-(. Mark