Re: [PATCH] Remove some unnecessary inferior_ptid setting/restoring when fetching/storing registers

[Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>]

On 2017-03-23 12:19, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 03/22/2017 05:29 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>> Now that the to_fetch_registers, to_store_registers and
>> to_prepare_to_store target methods don't rely on the value of
>> inferior_ptid anymore, we can remove a bunch of now unnecessary 
>> setting
>> and restoring of inferior_ptid.
>> 
>> The asserts added recently in target_fetch_registers and
>> target_store_registers, which validate that inferior_ptid matches the
>> regcache's ptid, must go away.  It's the whole point of this effort, 
>> to
>> not require inferior_ptid to have a particular value when calling 
>> these
>> functions.
>> 
>> One thing that I noticed is how sol-thread.c's ps_lgetregs and friends
>> use the current value of inferior_ptid instead of what's passed as
>> argument (ph->ptid), unlike proc-service.c's versions of the same
>> functions.  Is it expected?  I left it like this in the current patch,
>> but unless there's a good reason for it to be that way, I guess we
>> should make it use the parameter.
> 
> Probably no good reason.
> 
> 
>> 
>> gdb/ChangeLog:
>> 
>> 	* fbsd-tdep.c (fbsd_corefile_thread): Don't set/restore
>> 	inferior_ptid.
>> 	* proc-service.c (ps_lgetregs, ps_lsetregs, ps_lgetfpregs,
>> 	ps_lsetfpregs): Likewise.
>> 	* regcache.c (regcache_raw_update, regcache_raw_write): Likewise.
>> 	* sol-thread.c (ps_lgetregs, ps_lsetregs, ps_lgetfpregs,
>> 	ps_lsetfpregs): Likewise.
>> 	* target.c (target_fetch_registers, target_store_registers):
>> 	Remove asserts.
> 
> LGTM.

Thanks, pushed.