This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
register_size question (was Re: A matter of taste?)
- From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat dot com>
- To: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 16:03:51 +0200
- Subject: register_size question (was Re: A matter of taste?)
- References: <20030709135543.GO12368@cygbert.vinschen.de>
- Reply-to: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
Oops, sorry for the weird subject, I mixed the subject of one
mail with the content of another one. :-(((
I'm going to send a patch related to this mail to gdb-patches in a
minute (with a better subject, of course).
Corinna
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 03:55:43PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently substituting a bunch of calls to REGISTER_RAW_SIZE.
> Since REGISTER_RAW_SIZE should be removed entirely, I was wondering
> how to do it most nicely.
>
> What I don't quite get is the implementation of function register_size
> in regcache.c. It retrieves the size of the regsiter from the
> regcache and then checks twice(!) if that size equals REGISTER_RAW_SIZE.
> If I understand that correctly, a multi-arched target which got rid of
> REGISTER_RAW_SIZE can't use register_size () since the REGISTER_RAW_SIZE
> calls in register_size will raise an internal_error in
> gdbarch_deprecated_register_raw_size().
>
> What is that good for? And what's the substitute for a target with
> no REGISTER_RAW_SIZE implementation? One idea is to use the constant
> byte size in cases where it's clear (the tdep code typically knows
> the register size). But that looks always a bit ugly. So, would
>
> TYPE_LENGTH (gdbarch_register_type (gdbarch, regnum))
>
> be a good way to do it?
>
>
> Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Developer
Red Hat, Inc.
mailto:vinschen@redhat.com