Re: [PATCH v3 08/10] Support software single step on ARM in GDBServer.

[Antoine Tremblay <antoine dot tremblay at ericsson dot com>]

On 11/26/2015 11:07 AM, Antoine Tremblay wrote:
> On 11/26/2015 11:03 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
> > On 26/11/15 15:11, Antoine Tremblay wrote:
> > > This is the same link as the previous one...
> >
> > Oops, sorry, https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2007-06/msg00087.html
> Thanks
>
> > >   IMO, it is
> > > > better to use regcache than frame.  We have two options,
> > > >
> > > >   #1, switch from frame apis to regcache apis to access registers in
> > > > arm
> > > >    software single step.  We can get regcache by get_current_regcache
> > > > ().

About this one, as we thought it would simplify the 
collect_register_unsigned field.

It's unfortunate but it won't because GDB's collect_registers_unsigned 
reads the registers and then calls extract_register_unsigned (in the 
same call).

This function uses bfd enums for byte ordering and I can't use that in 
GDBServer as discussed previously.

So I will not be able to directly share GDB's 
collect_registers_unsigned, thus either collect_register_unsigned will 
be replaced by 2 calls, one shared that fetches the register, and then a 
call that extracts the integer as a different operation on GDB and 
GDBserver or I will end up with the same collect_register_unsigned field 
only it will be using regcache on GDBServer's side now.

And I don't think it's good to have it in 2 calls, so I will have the 
same collect_register_unsigned_field...

Thus this refactoring would not simplify the patch and IMHO would create 
some inconsistency why are we using regcache in some place for no 
apparent gain while all the rest uses frame.

In light of this, I plan to keep it as is unless there's an objection ?

Regards,
Antoine