From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB0F43858C2D for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 03:23:49 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org DB0F43858C2D Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org DB0F43858C2D Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=158.69.221.121 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1703215431; cv=none; b=RBI5KMm0e78UzLbomUGjni+j5u0nRA7AfLaIGPCIhN2lp9vlwEQl51KPBDxXufdhF+hRKGSUcAlbWOPLa10xam7JVv3QkrKXxZtbH5UpBOmUzNt5Tdyz3yb9BPZyN9IYzyd1wyZfhwAgoXlrxp/UGEOyY7uMcB1lRx34S/VFOzk= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1703215431; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fNH+LWlLpZg1x0iMCWJ/ocKWHJdH4V2ItQfEdpgdj3s=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=kxLyvsiaCXTh7UhxSR34yxl7xqcEvTo6NWoRTPM0ikocc6ZECnLcWAR06GC2+sXsxMYtWixfKNG0SlAUKVJcJLAvG/wvrwPauP0Sq2sXJa1FsNXFWBBRN03N0DB8J4ffBnPmayaL/VGKWDbDTvpGqhfcckfD19Iybhr3HzIjOKg= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1703215429; bh=fNH+LWlLpZg1x0iMCWJ/ocKWHJdH4V2ItQfEdpgdj3s=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=kR179kdPGrdJaA+SAlbZ4hcXgxmQoNOI4SEhckztpayXubduwva1wO9UhwZ06b3KE fe2obavBJGXhBSnMxEUDuyJFeA+DiW5suhgjEN5P4hfaBK9f4CnXMvuptUxmPvm0j2 r9EbDS7VPa9TCnwAyAy17gkNpQ4+kh+pKkxVufXA= Received: from [10.0.0.11] (modemcable238.237-201-24.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.237.238]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89E031E091; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 22:23:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 22:23:49 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/26] gdbserver: rename regcache's registers_valid to registers_fetched Content-Language: en-US To: Tankut Baris Aktemur , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <7296899ef77a86051c398fc1c20338f2937386eb.1677582745.git.tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: <7296899ef77a86051c398fc1c20338f2937386eb.1677582745.git.tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 2023-02-28 06:28, Tankut Baris Aktemur via Gdb-patches wrote: > The registers_valid field of the regcache struct is used for tracking > whether we have attempted to fetch all the registers from the target. > Its name does not reflect this well, I think. It falsely gives the > impression that all the registers are valid. This may conflict an > individual register status, which could be REG_UNAVAILABLE. To better > reflect the purpose, rename the field to "registers_fetched". I agree that the term valid is used for both things here. I'm fine with the change. Again, I think that can be pushed right away. Approved-By: Simon Marchi Simon