Re: [PATCH] Fix sparc-*-linux register fetching/storing

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

>> That sounds like overkill.  If you need to be doing sign/zero extension 
>> stuff then I'd be looking at explicit calls to extract_signed_integer() 
>> and/or extract_unsigned_integer() in the nat code.
>> 
>> A sequence like:
>> 
>> void *buf = alloca (MAX_REGISTER_RAW_SIZE);
>> regcache_collect (my reg, buf);
>> LONGEST val = extract_unsigned_integer (buf, REGISTER_RAW_SIZE(my reg));
>> store_unsigned_integer (dest, dest size, val);
>> 
>> should insulate it from the current problems.
> 
> 
> But won't we want this absolutely every time we extract a CORE_ADDR? 
> And for that matter, I'm talking about getting a target memory address
> out of a register; is store_*signed_integer right for that?  Is there
> an extract_pointer or so?

In *-nat.c?  Now I'm confused :-)

Doesn't the *-nat.c file just copy raw register bytes between the 
regcache and the /proc or ptrace() interface?  The only complication I 
could see is if someone used 32 bit ptrace calls to get the values for a 
regcache that had space for 64 bit registers - the above code snipit 
would handle that.

The reason for suggesting extract/store signed/unsigned integer is that 
they have clear, machine independant, semantics that work on 
uninterpreted (well apart from assuming they are integers :-) bytes.

?
Andrew