From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19142 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2010 17:00:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 19124 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Sep 2010 17:00:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:00:32 +0000 Received: (qmail 4555 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2010 17:00:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 29 Sep 2010 17:00:30 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: New ARI warning Wed Sep 29 01:54:08 UTC 2010 Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:25:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.2 (Linux/2.6.33-29-realtime; KDE/4.4.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Joel Brobecker References: <20100929015408.GA32737@sourceware.org> <20100929163246.GN3007@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20100929163246.GN3007@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201009291800.28269.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-09/txt/msg00494.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 29 September 2010 17:32:47, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > 1096a1097,1099 > > > gdb/ravenscar-sparc-thread.c:71: deprecate: read_memory: Replace read_memory() with regcache_read() et.al. > > gdb/ravenscar-sparc-thread.c:71: read_memory (register_addr, buf, buf_size); > > > gdb/ravenscar-sparc-thread.c:173: deprecate: write_memory: Replace write_memory() with regcache_read() et.al. > > gdb/ravenscar-sparc-thread.c:173: write_memory (register_address, > > > gdb/ravenscar-thread.c:156: deprecate: read_memory: Replace read_memory() with regcache_read() et.al. > > gdb/ravenscar-thread.c:156: read_memory (object_addr, buf, buf_size); > > I can fix the warnings, but are we really planning on removing > read/write_memory (and why?). I can use target_read_memory instead, > but I don't get the suggestion about regcache_read... The ARI suggestion makes no sense. It's the ARI that needs fixing. My guess is that the intention was to suggest replacing read_register() with regcache_read() at.al. (that is, s/memory/register) read_register/write_register have been yanked out from the sources already few years ago. -- Pedro Alves