From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: frame_register_read()
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 09:00:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200205141559.QAA23440@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 May 2002 10:41:25 EDT." <3CE12215.1020308@cygnus.com>
> > Andrew,
> >
> > frame_register_read() contains the comment
> >
> > /* FIXME: cagney/2002-04-10: This test is just bogus. It is no
> > indication of the validity of the register. The value could
> > easily be found (on the stack) even though the corresponding
> > register isn't available. */
> > if (register_cached (regnum) < 0)
> > return 0; /* register value not available */
> >
> > But in regcache.c we have
> >
> > /* REGISTER_VALID is 0 if the register needs to be fetched,
> > 1 if it has been fetched, and
> > -1 if the register value was not available.
> > "Not available" means don't try to fetch it again. */
> >
> > So why is the code in frame_register_read incorrect? It's simply testing
> > that the register exists for this target. If it doesn't exist, then how
> > can it be recovered from the stack?
>
> Introspect (tracepoints, target snapshots) do this. If a specific
> snapshot doesn't contain a register then the register is unavailable.
> The corresponding hardware still has the register so its value can be
> found on the stack.
So it seems the comment in regcache.c is incomplete/misleading. Could you
clarify it?
R.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-14 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-14 3:19 frame_register_read() Richard Earnshaw
2002-05-14 7:41 ` frame_register_read() Andrew Cagney
2002-05-14 9:00 ` Richard Earnshaw [this message]
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=200205141559.QAA23440@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=rearnsha@arm.com \
--cc=Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com \
--cc=ac131313@cygnus.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.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