Re: [PATCH] Support large registers in regcache transfer_regset

[Simon Marchi <simark at simark dot ca>]

On 2018-06-19 07:27, Alan Hayward wrote:
> > > +/* See regcache.h.  */
> > > +
> > > +void
> > > +reg_buffer::raw_collect_part (int regnum, int offset, int len, void 
> > > *in) const
> > > +{
> > > +  struct gdbarch *gdbarch = arch ();
> > > +  gdb_byte *reg = (gdb_byte *) alloca (register_size (gdbarch, 
> > > regnum));
> > > +
> > > +  gdb_assert (in != NULL);
> > > +  gdb_assert (offset >= 0 && offset <= 
> > > m_descr->sizeof_register[regnum]);
> > > +  gdb_assert (len >= 0 && offset + len <= 
> > > m_descr->sizeof_register[regnum]);
> >
> > The "&& offset <= m_descr->sizeof_register[regnum]" is redundant, 
> > given the
> > following line.  Other than mimicking raw_read_part, is there a reason 
> > why
> > these are signed integers?  Having them unsigned would avoid having to 
> > assert
> > they are >= 0.
>
> Looking at regcache, int is used for regnum throughout. I’d rather not 
> have a
> mismatch, and wouldn’t want to update everything else either (at least 
> not
> in this patch). In addition, if this code is going to now call down to
> raw_collect/raw_supply, they should match.

Sorry, I was talking about len and offset, not regnum.

Simon