Re: [patch/rfc,RFA:doco] STORE_RETURN_VALUE with regcache

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at ges dot redhat dot com>]

> 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