Re: [PATCH 3/11] Add MIPS_MAX_REGISTER_SIZE (4/4)

["Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@imgtec.com>]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2017, Alan Hayward wrote:

> I don't have a MIPS machine to test on.

 I could schedule a test run over the coming weekend, however your change 
applies to EABI support, which I believe is long dead (as in: nobody uses 
it).  Consequently I don't have a way to test with an EABI target either.

> diff --git a/gdb/mips-tdep.c b/gdb/mips-tdep.c
> index 82f91ba2cd950c5f48f8f408f645ea49e952ef29..52d2ca134f8d14f54c6f4e450c84597c4d6a0e0e 100644
> --- a/gdb/mips-tdep.c
> +++ b/gdb/mips-tdep.c
> @@ -4528,7 +4528,7 @@ mips_eabi_push_dummy_call (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, struct value *function,
>    for (argnum = 0; argnum < nargs; argnum++)
>      {
>        const gdb_byte *val;
> -      gdb_byte valbuf[MAX_REGISTER_SIZE];
> +      gdb_byte valbuf[8];
>        struct value *arg = args[argnum];
>        struct type *arg_type = check_typedef (value_type (arg));
>        int len = TYPE_LENGTH (arg_type);

 If you need to get rid of MAX_REGISTER_SIZE here (what was reason 
again?), then why not simply use `regsize' instead as the array size?

 AFAICS `valbuf' is only written once, with the size of data requested 
specified exactly as `regsize'.  The only explanation I have been able to 
come up with as to why MAX_REGISTER_SIZE has been chosen for `valbuf' 
allocation is it was made before we could assume variable-length automatic 
array support.

> @@ -4544,6 +4544,7 @@ mips_eabi_push_dummy_call (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, struct value *function,
>        if (len > regsize
>  	  && (typecode == TYPE_CODE_STRUCT || typecode == TYPE_CODE_UNION))
>  	{
> +	  gdb_assert (regsize <= 8);
>  	  store_unsigned_integer (valbuf, regsize, byte_order,
>  				  value_address (arg));
>  	  typecode = TYPE_CODE_PTR;

 You obviously don't need the assertion then.

  Maciej