Commit Message
On 16-11-30 22:16:37, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > This also reveals a design issue in frame_register_unwind, that is
> > arguments addrp and realnump are mutually exclusive, we either use
> > addrp (for lval_memory), or use realnump (for lval_register). This
> > can be done in a separate patch.
>
> I think we should simply get rid of frame_register_unwind. Callers
> should be changed to use frame_unwind_register_value directly, and
> just operate on the value.
>
Yeah, that is what I was trying to do, but we should be careful on
the value management in the end of frame_register_unwind,
/* Dispose of the new value. This prevents watchpoints from
trying to watch the saved frame pointer. */
release_value (value);
value_free (value);
> > *lvalp = VALUE_LVAL (value);
> > *addrp = value_address (value);
> > - *realnump = VALUE_REGNUM (value);
> > + if (*lvalp == lval_register)
> > + *realnump = VALUE_REGNUM (value);
>
> But as long as the above change is not done yet, maybe we ought to
> at least provide a defined value (e.g. -1), to avoid callers maybe
> making use of uninitialized variables?
>
OK, how about the patch below?
Comments
On 16-12-06 14:13:28, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>
> > OK, how about the patch below?
>
> Looks good to me.
>
Patch is pushed in.
@@ -1107,7 +1107,10 @@ frame_register_unwind (struct frame_info *frame, int regnum,
*unavailablep = !value_entirely_available (value);
*lvalp = VALUE_LVAL (value);
*addrp = value_address (value);
- *realnump = VALUE_REGNUM (value);
+ if (*lvalp == lval_register)
+ *realnump = VALUE_REGNUM (value);
+ else
+ *realnump = -1;
if (bufferp)
{
@@ -1576,12 +1576,14 @@ deprecated_value_internalvar_hack (struct value *value)
struct frame_id *
deprecated_value_next_frame_id_hack (struct value *value)
{
+ gdb_assert (value->lval == lval_register);
return &value->location.reg.next_frame_id;
}
int *
deprecated_value_regnum_hack (struct value *value)
{
+ gdb_assert (value->lval == lval_register);
return &value->location.reg.regnum;
}