From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: RFC: partially available registers
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 04:24:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAN9gPaFFX0H4tONNL27GCwCtpPoLCtjs5HpS7sXaLSM-wjctSw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m3vcv6xegp.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
I'm too stale to properly review this patch, but I have some comments.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
> This patch fixes the problem by letting an arch register a new
> pseudo_register_read_value method, which is responsible for constructing
> a struct value for the register. This gives us a chance to mark
> just some bits unavailable.
I think this is the right approach. We should move more towards
values, not away; in particular, I do not prefer this alternative:
> * Rather than a way to return values, have a different API, say one
> where gdb requests the first N bytes of a register.
As for the patch itself:
* Some documentation on the gdbarch method would be nice, in
particular, the return value. Does 0 mean "not a pseudo"?
* Stale comment in sentinel_frame_prev_register.
* I am not happy about having to implement both
gdbarch_pseudo_register_read and gdbarch_pseudo_register_read_value,
depending on which regcache read function was called. So for a final
version, is it practical to push this down and only call the value
version if it is registered? That means implementing the existing
regcache read in terms of the new one, instead of the other way
around.
--
Thanks,
Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-13 20:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-13 20:17 Tom Tromey
2011-07-14 4:24 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2011-07-15 20:52 ` Tom Tromey
2011-07-18 4:15 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2011-07-20 20:14 ` Pedro Alves
2011-07-20 18:49 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2011-07-20 20:46 ` Tom Tromey
2011-07-20 20:53 ` Tom Tromey
2011-07-24 13:48 ` Mark Kettenis
2011-07-25 15:50 ` Tom Tromey
2011-07-21 5:23 ` Ulrich Weigand
2011-07-21 20:27 ` Tom Tromey
2011-07-22 13:48 ` Ulrich Weigand
2011-07-22 15:42 ` Tom Tromey
2011-07-22 14:30 ` Pedro Alves
2011-07-22 15:40 ` Tom Tromey
2011-07-22 19:10 ` Pedro Alves
2011-07-22 19:19 ` Tom Tromey
2011-07-22 19:31 ` Pedro Alves
2011-07-22 21:58 ` Pedro Alves
2011-07-22 22:20 ` Tom Tromey
2011-07-26 17:08 ` Pedro Alves
2011-07-26 17:13 ` Pedro Alves
2011-07-26 19:46 ` Tom Tromey
2011-07-27 18:25 ` Tom Tromey
2011-07-27 19:30 ` Tom Tromey
2011-07-27 19:33 ` Pedro Alves
2011-07-28 5:19 ` Mark Kettenis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAN9gPaFFX0H4tONNL27GCwCtpPoLCtjs5HpS7sXaLSM-wjctSw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=tromey@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox