From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11980 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2003 21:05:55 -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 11794 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2003 21:05:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2003 21:05:52 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2HL5ji19875; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:05:45 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Keith Seitz Cc: "gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" , Andrew Cagney Subject: Re: [rfa] missing frame_register References: <1047935045.1490.50.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> From: David Carlton Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:05:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1047935045.1490.50.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00380.txt.bz2 On 17 Mar 2003 13:04:05 -0800, Keith Seitz said: > On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 11:47, David Carlton wrote: > I was hoping not to have to do anything about this until later (let 'em > sweat for a few hours! :v), but I don't believe the below will work: >> + frame_register (deprecated_selected_frame, regnum, &optim, >> + NULL, NULL, &realnum, raw_buffer); > In frame.c: > void > frame_register (struct frame_info *frame, int regnum, > int *optimizedp, enum lval_type *lvalp, > CORE_ADDR *addrp, int *realnump, void *bufferp) > { > /* Require all but BUFFERP to be valid. A NULL BUFFERP indicates > that the value proper does not need to be fetched. */ > gdb_assert (optimizedp != NULL); > gdb_assert (lvalp != NULL); > gdb_assert (addrp != NULL); > gdb_assert (realnump != NULL); > /* gdb_assert (bufferp != NULL); */ Oh. Whoops. I guess I could have done a bit more checking! I guess I needed a few more dummy variables, or something. > I have a patch that does work (I think), and I will check it in > momentarily, unless you want to follow through. Thanks, be my guest. > I appreciate your thinking of me, urgh, insight! Well, I figured I owed insight one after I inadvertently broke it twice a month or so back. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu