From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jim Blandy To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Remove D10V-specific code from arch-independent modules Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:38:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <20010629000735.132405E9CB@zwingli.cygnus.com> <3B43FE67.5000106@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00121.html This patch is withdrawn for revision; see below. Andrew Cagney writes: > > + struct type *code_ptr_type; > > > should this be a builtin_type? GDB has: > > > > /* Address/pointer types: */ > > /* (C) Language pointer type. Some target platforms use an implicitly > > {sign,zero} -extended 32 bit C language pointer on a 64 bit ISA. */ > > extern struct type *builtin_type_ptr; > > I think having: > > extern struct type *builtin_type_data_ptr; > extern struct type *builtin_type_{func,insn,???}_ptr; > > would make more sense. It would also eliminate the need for the hack: > > > ! /* We can't create this type until the D10V gdbarch object has been > > ! made current, or else the size will be wrong. This means we > > ! can't initialize it in d10v_gdbarch_init. So we do it here, the > > ! first time we need it. */ > > ! if (! tdep->code_ptr_type) > > ! tdep->code_ptr_type > > ! = lookup_pointer_type (lookup_function_type (builtin_type_void)); > > ! Yes. I've submitted another patch that does this. > The s/D10V_MAKE_IADDR/d10v_make_iaddr/ et.al. applied to d10v-tdep.c can > go straight in as an obvious fix. This should make the final patch a > lot smaller :-) Yes. I've committed a change that does this. > The convert to/from virtual/raw register functions are borderline > deprecated. They are being replaced by the much simpler functions > gdbarch_register_{read,write}. If, for the d10v, those conversion > functions are being eliminated then I'd just delete them. The D10V no longer has any convertible registers, so those functions certainly should never be called. I just assumed I'd get a gdbarch error if I didn't provide some value for them. Are you saying I can just delete the set_gdbarch_* calls altogether, and the dummy functions they register? (I guess since the corresponding macros are optional, that would make sense...) > Once I've got a more concrete feel for the change (the examples) I'll go > back through this. Thanks for looking it over!