Re: GDB 6.8.92 available for testing

[Ralf Corsepius <ralf.corsepius@rtems.org>]

On 10/02/2009 05:47 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius<ralf.corsepius@rtems.org>  writes:
>>>>>>              
> Ralf>  Eg. this one:
> Ralf>  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00585.html
>
> I checked this in.
>
> Ralf>  and this one:
> Ralf>  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00556.html
>
> Ralf>  But I presume, I can consider the later one to be rejected - This
> Ralf>  doesn't help anybody, but ... you want it this way, so be it.
>
> I think 'len' should be 'unsigned int', not 'size_t'.
>    
I think, len should be size_t, like any "sizeof"'s return type.


This also manifests in how "len" is being used in the fragment in question:

sparc32_store_return_value (struct type *type, struct regcache *regcache,
                             const gdb_byte *valbuf)
{
   size_t len = TYPE_LENGTH (type);
   gdb_byte buf[8];

   gdb_assert (!sparc_structure_or_union_p (type));
   gdb_assert (!(sparc_floating_p (type) && len == 16));

   if (sparc_floating_p (type))
     {
       /* Floating return values.  */
       memcpy (buf, valbuf, len);
       regcache_cooked_write (regcache, SPARC_F0_REGNUM, buf);
       if (len > 4)
         regcache_cooked_write (regcache, SPARC_F1_REGNUM, buf + 4);
     }
   else
     {
       /* Integral and pointer return values.  */
       gdb_assert (sparc_integral_or_pointer_p (type));

       if (len > 4)
         {
           gdb_assert (len == 8);
           memcpy (buf, valbuf, 8);
           regcache_cooked_write (regcache, SPARC_O1_REGNUM, buf + 4);
         }
       else
         {
           /* ??? Do we need to do any sign-extension here?  */
           memcpy (buf + 4 - len, valbuf, len);
         }
       regcache_cooked_write (regcache, SPARC_O0_REGNUM, buf);
     }
}
...

Note: memcpy(..., len)

Apart of this, I can't imagine changing this "int" into "size_t" to have 
any negative impact.

That is, though the origin for the patch might be a bug in GCC, I don't 
see how the patch can be harmful.

Ralf