RFC: Optimization to write_register_bytes()
Thu May 4 20:08:00 GMT 2000
Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Fernando Nasser wrote:
> > Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > >
> > > Fernando Nasser wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We can save some time (and fix a problem I have) if we make a simple assumption in
> > > > write_register_bytes().
> > >
> > > Would the problem go away if the problematic code didn't use
> > > write_register_bytes?
> > >
I suspect now that we are talking about different things.
I did no write any calls to write_register_bytes(). The code
that calls it could probably, for this specific architecture, call
write_register_gen() instead. But that code is generic and I guess
the author used write_register_bytes() because of some other targets.
So, the answer is yes, if someone (where someone != me) wants to be
adventurous and do some cleanups on that code and get rid of the call
to write_register_bytes() and replace it to call(s) to
write_register_gen() I believe it would solve my problem.
Until someone gets rid of all calls to write_register_bytes() in gdb
(if this is at all possible), I don't see why we cannot improve it
and solve my immediate problem. It is a shame that gdb cannot yet show
So, IMO, we should fix/optimize it until such date where someone can
find time to undertake the write_register_bytes() cleanup.
Cygnus Solutions (a Red Hat company) E-Mail: email@example.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Tel: 416-482-2661 ext. 311
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9 Fax: 416-482-6299
More information about the Gdb-patches