* [PATCH 1/2] gdb: remove stale comment in value_assign
@ 2023-12-18 20:02 Simon Marchi
2023-12-18 20:02 ` [PATCH 2/2] gdb: use put_frame_register instead of put_frame_register_bytes in pseudo_to_concat_raw Simon Marchi
2023-12-19 15:05 ` [PATCH 1/2] gdb: remove stale comment in value_assign Tom Tromey
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Simon Marchi @ 2023-12-18 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches; +Cc: 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] gdb: use put_frame_register instead of put_frame_register_bytes in pseudo_to_concat_raw
2023-12-18 20:02 [PATCH 1/2] gdb: remove stale comment in value_assign Simon Marchi
@ 2023-12-18 20:02 ` Simon Marchi
2023-12-19 15:06 ` Tom Tromey
2023-12-19 15:05 ` [PATCH 1/2] gdb: remove stale comment in value_assign Tom Tromey
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Simon Marchi @ 2023-12-18 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches; +Cc: 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] gdb: remove stale comment in value_assign
2023-12-18 20:02 [PATCH 1/2] gdb: remove stale comment in value_assign Simon Marchi
2023-12-18 20:02 ` [PATCH 2/2] gdb: use put_frame_register instead of put_frame_register_bytes in pseudo_to_concat_raw Simon Marchi
@ 2023-12-19 15:05 ` Tom Tromey
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2023-12-19 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Marchi; +Cc: gdb-patches
>>>>> "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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] gdb: use put_frame_register instead of put_frame_register_bytes in pseudo_to_concat_raw
2023-12-18 20:02 ` [PATCH 2/2] gdb: use put_frame_register instead of put_frame_register_bytes in pseudo_to_concat_raw Simon Marchi
@ 2023-12-19 15:06 ` Tom Tromey
2023-12-19 16:12 ` Simon Marchi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2023-12-19 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Marchi; +Cc: gdb-patches
>>>>> "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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] gdb: use put_frame_register instead of put_frame_register_bytes in pseudo_to_concat_raw
2023-12-19 15:06 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2023-12-19 16:12 ` Simon Marchi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Simon Marchi @ 2023-12-19 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: gdb-patches
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-12-19 16:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-12-18 20:02 [PATCH 1/2] gdb: remove stale comment in value_assign Simon Marchi
2023-12-18 20:02 ` [PATCH 2/2] gdb: use put_frame_register instead of put_frame_register_bytes in pseudo_to_concat_raw Simon Marchi
2023-12-19 15:06 ` Tom Tromey
2023-12-19 16:12 ` Simon Marchi
2023-12-19 15:05 ` [PATCH 1/2] gdb: remove stale comment in value_assign Tom Tromey
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).