This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Clear *VAL in regcache_raw_read_unsigned
- From: Antoine Tremblay <antoine dot tremblay at ericsson dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>, <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:32:11 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clear *VAL in regcache_raw_read_unsigned
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1455029644-6197-1-git-send-email-yao dot qi at linaro dot org> <86egckqztq dot fsf at gmail dot com> <56BB6ADB dot 6070909 at redhat dot com> <86a8n8qxyp dot fsf at gmail dot com> <56BB7512 dot 2030507 at redhat dot com> <8660xvr1wr dot fsf at gmail dot com> <56BC829B dot 8060102 at redhat dot com> <864mdfp9b3 dot fsf at gmail dot com> <56BCAE02 dot 7030803 at redhat dot com>
Pedro Alves writes:
> On 02/11/2016 03:15 PM, Yao Qi wrote:
>
>> I think this is better than 'make gdbserver use extract_unsigned_integer',
>> which looks overkill to me.
>
> I think it's only going to bite us back in the future.
>
> From the perspective of potentially making it easier to share more
> code between gdb and gdbserver, I'd prefer that. Would you object it?
>
For what it's worth, I would also like extract_unsigned_integer to be in
common and have the bfd_enums moved if possible.
>> get-next-pcs stuff needs endianness in GDB side. In GDBserver,
>> endianness is not needed.
Note that I dropped BE8 support from my single step patches, but should
we ever want to reintroduce something like that endianness would be
needed in GDBServer.
>
> The get-next-pcs stuff does have endianness bits, but it works
> around the lack of 'enum bfd_endian' by hacking it through an int instead:
>
That hack is indeed unfortunate.
>>
>>> patch series that handles that by moving bfd_endian to a separate header.
>>> I've pushed it to the users/palves/gdbserver-extract-unsigned-integer branch
>>> as well.
Thank you!
Regards,
Antoine