[patch/rfc,RFA:doco] STORE_RETURN_VALUE with regcache
Andrew Cagney
ac131313@ges.redhat.com
Tue Aug 20 13:01:00 GMT 2002
> Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com> writes:
>
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> The attached patch ``upgrades'' STORE_RETURN_VALUE so that it includes
>> the register cache in which the value should be stored (it was using the
>> current global register cache).
>
>
> Looks good to me. However, patches like this one break pure
> multi-arch targets that are converted to use the non-deprecated
> variants of these functions if they don't fill in the deprecated
> function in their gdbarch too.
>
> My idea for fixing this is illustrated by the following patch, but
> perhaps there is a more elegant way to do this?
Hmm, yes, the logic is messed up for this case. I'll think about it
some more with your patch.
> It also makes the buffer parameters ``[const] void *'' which is more
>> like most other architecture methods.
>
>
> I noticed that you have been introducing bfd_byte in several of your
> recent patches. Why's this better than using char?
Just ``char'' is dangerous as it could be signed or unsigned. I've
typically found that ``unsigned char'' is what is needed wanted. I just
stumbled across bfd_byte (typedef unsigned char) so have picked that up
as a byte type. Doesn't worry me.
enjoy,
Andrew
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list