Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] Add new GDB command "maint print user-registers"

[Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com>]

Andreas Arnez <arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> [...]
> @@ -215,10 +217,38 @@ value_of_user_reg (int regnum, struct frame_info *frame)
>    return reg->read (frame, reg->baton);
>  }
>  
> +static void
> +maintenance_print_user_registers (char *args, int from_tty)
> +{
> +  struct gdbarch *gdbarch;
> +  struct gdb_user_regs *regs;
> +  struct user_reg *reg;
> +  int nr;
> +
> +  if (!target_has_registers)
> +    error (_("The program has no registers now."));
> +
> +  gdbarch = get_frame_arch (get_selected_frame (NULL));
> +  regs = gdbarch_data (gdbarch, user_regs_data);
> +  nr = gdbarch_num_regs (gdbarch) + gdbarch_num_pseudo_regs (gdbarch);
> +
> +  fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdout, " Nr  Name\n");
> +  for (reg = regs->first; reg != NULL; reg = reg->next)
> +    {
> +      fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdout, "%3d  %s\n", nr, reg->name);
> +      nr++;
> +    }
> +}
> +
> [...]

Hi.

Nit: I realize the rest of the file uses "nr" but
it's a horrible name.  I hadn't read user-regs.c
in awhile, and was reading your patch absent that context.
I read "nr" and think "number of registers",
and that's the only thing that comes to mind
as a possible interpretation.

I'm not asking you to change any other uses,
but can I ask that "nr" here be named "regnum" or some such.

In the column title you could use "Num" or some such.

Also, I think the loop would be more readable thusly:

+  for (reg = regs->first; reg != NULL; reg = reg->next, regnum++)

I have a slight preference for this instead:

+  for (reg = regs->first; reg != NULL; reg = reg->next, ++regnum)

but the rest of the file uses post-inc, so whatever.