[PATCH 1/2] gdb: remove stale comment in value_assign

[PATCH 1/2] gdb: remove stale comment in value_assign

[Simon Marchi]

This comment is no longer relevant, put_frame_register_bytes now accepts
the "next frame".

Change-Id: I077933a03f8bdb886f8ba10a98d1202a38bce0a9
---
 gdb/valops.c | 7 -------
 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/valops.c b/gdb/valops.c
index 21b010684af1..049314cf7db5 100644
--- a/gdb/valops.c
+++ b/gdb/valops.c
@@ -1193,13 +1193,6 @@ value_assign (struct value *toval, struct value *fromval)
 
     case lval_register:
       {
-	/* Figure out which frame this register value is in.  The value
-	   holds the frame_id for the next frame, that is the frame this
-	   register value was unwound from.
-
-	   Below we will call put_frame_register_bytes which requires that
-	   we pass it the actual frame in which the register value is
-	   valid, i.e. not the next frame.  */
 	frame_info_ptr next_frame = frame_find_by_id (VALUE_NEXT_FRAME_ID (toval));
 
 	int value_reg = VALUE_REGNUM (toval);

base-commit: 989ea4061f275edb85ab5de8f908be5a273bd05a
-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH 2/2] gdb: use put_frame_register instead of put_frame_register_bytes in pseudo_to_concat_raw

[Simon Marchi]

Here, we write single complete registers, we don't need the
functionality of put_frame_register_bytes, use put_frame_register
instead.

Change-Id: I987867a27249db4f792a694b47ecb21c44f64d08
---
 gdb/value.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/value.c b/gdb/value.c
index bca3fd07425f..7523af142348 100644
--- a/gdb/value.c
+++ b/gdb/value.c
@@ -4123,13 +4123,13 @@ pseudo_to_concat_raw (frame_info_ptr next_frame,
   gdbarch *arch = frame_unwind_arch (next_frame);
 
   int raw_reg_1_size = register_size (arch, raw_reg_1_num);
-  put_frame_register_bytes (next_frame, raw_reg_1_num, 0,
-			    pseudo_buf.slice (src_offset, raw_reg_1_size));
+  put_frame_register (next_frame, raw_reg_1_num,
+		      pseudo_buf.slice (src_offset, raw_reg_1_size));
   src_offset += raw_reg_1_size;
 
   int raw_reg_2_size = register_size (arch, raw_reg_2_num);
-  put_frame_register_bytes (next_frame, raw_reg_2_num, 0,
-			    pseudo_buf.slice (src_offset, raw_reg_2_size));
+  put_frame_register (next_frame, raw_reg_2_num,
+		      pseudo_buf.slice (src_offset, raw_reg_2_size));
   src_offset += raw_reg_2_size;
 
   gdb_assert (src_offset == pseudo_buf.size ());
@@ -4177,18 +4177,18 @@ pseudo_to_concat_raw (frame_info_ptr next_frame,
   gdbarch *arch = frame_unwind_arch (next_frame);
 
   int raw_reg_1_size = register_size (arch, raw_reg_1_num);
-  put_frame_register_bytes (next_frame, raw_reg_1_num, 0,
-			    pseudo_buf.slice (src_offset, raw_reg_1_size));
+  put_frame_register (next_frame, raw_reg_1_num,
+		      pseudo_buf.slice (src_offset, raw_reg_1_size));
   src_offset += raw_reg_1_size;
 
   int raw_reg_2_size = register_size (arch, raw_reg_2_num);
-  put_frame_register_bytes (next_frame, raw_reg_2_num, 0,
-			    pseudo_buf.slice (src_offset, raw_reg_2_size));
+  put_frame_register (next_frame, raw_reg_2_num,
+		      pseudo_buf.slice (src_offset, raw_reg_2_size));
   src_offset += raw_reg_2_size;
 
   int raw_reg_3_size = register_size (arch, raw_reg_3_num);
-  put_frame_register_bytes (next_frame, raw_reg_3_num, 0,
-			    pseudo_buf.slice (src_offset, raw_reg_3_size));
+  put_frame_register (next_frame, raw_reg_3_num,
+		      pseudo_buf.slice (src_offset, raw_reg_3_size));
   src_offset += raw_reg_3_size;
 
   gdb_assert (src_offset == pseudo_buf.size ());
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH 2/2] gdb: use put_frame_register instead of put_frame_register_bytes in pseudo_to_concat_raw

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> writes:

Simon> Here, we write single complete registers, we don't need the
Simon> functionality of put_frame_register_bytes, use put_frame_register
Simon> instead.

FWIW this makes sense to me.
Approved-By: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>

Tom

Re: [PATCH 2/2] gdb: use put_frame_register instead of put_frame_register_bytes in pseudo_to_concat_raw

[Simon Marchi]

On 12/19/23 10:06, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> writes:
> 
> Simon> Here, we write single complete registers, we don't need the
> Simon> functionality of put_frame_register_bytes, use put_frame_register
> Simon> instead.
> 
> FWIW this makes sense to me.
> Approved-By: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
> 
> Tom

Thanks, pushed both patches.

Simon

Re: [PATCH 1/2] gdb: remove stale comment in value_assign

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> writes:

Simon> This comment is no longer relevant, put_frame_register_bytes now accepts
Simon> the "next frame".

FWIW seems obvious to me.
Approved-By: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>

Tom