static int
check_field_in PARAMS ((struct type *, const char *));
+static CORE_ADDR
+allocate_space_in_inferior PARAMS ((int));
+
\f
+/* Allocate NBYTES of space in the inferior using the inferior's malloc
+ and return a value that is a pointer to the allocated space. */
+
+static CORE_ADDR
+allocate_space_in_inferior (len)
+ int len;
+{
+ register value val;
+ register struct symbol *sym;
+ struct minimal_symbol *msymbol;
+ struct type *type;
+ value blocklen;
+ LONGEST maddr;
+
+ /* Find the address of malloc in the inferior. */
+
+ sym = lookup_symbol ("malloc", 0, VAR_NAMESPACE, 0, NULL);
+ if (sym != NULL)
+ {
+ if (SYMBOL_CLASS (sym) != LOC_BLOCK)
+ {
+ error ("\"malloc\" exists in this program but is not a function.");
+ }
+ val = value_of_variable (sym);
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ msymbol = lookup_minimal_symbol ("malloc", (struct objfile *) NULL);
+ if (msymbol != NULL)
+ {
+ type = lookup_pointer_type (builtin_type_char);
+ type = lookup_function_type (type);
+ type = lookup_pointer_type (type);
+ maddr = (LONGEST) SYMBOL_VALUE_ADDRESS (msymbol);
+ val = value_from_longest (type, maddr);
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ error ("evaluation of this expression requires the program to have a function \"malloc\".");
+ }
+ }
+
+ blocklen = value_from_longest (builtin_type_int, (LONGEST) len);
+ val = call_function_by_hand (val, 1, &blocklen);
+ if (value_logical_not (val))
+ {
+ error ("No memory available to program.");
+ }
+ return (value_as_long (val));
+}
+
/* Cast value ARG2 to type TYPE and return as a value.
More general than a C cast: accepts any two types of the same length,
and if ARG2 is an lvalue it can be cast into anything at all. */
return val;
}
-/* Given a value which is an array, return a value which is
- a pointer to its first (actually, zeroth) element.
- FIXME, this should be subtracting the array's lower bound. */
+/* Given a value which is an array, return a value which is a pointer to its
+ first element, regardless of whether or not the array has a nonzero lower
+ bound.
+
+ FIXME: A previous comment here indicated that this routine should be
+ substracting the array's lower bound. It's not clear to me that this
+ is correct. Given an array subscripting operation, it would certainly
+ work to do the adjustment here, essentially computing:
+
+ (&array[0] - (lowerbound * sizeof array[0])) + (index * sizeof array[0])
+
+ However I believe a more appropriate and logical place to account for
+ the lower bound is to do so in value_subscript, essentially computing:
+
+ (&array[0] + ((index - lowerbound) * sizeof array[0]))
+
+ As further evidence consider what would happen with operations other
+ than array subscripting, where the caller would get back a value that
+ had an address somewhere before the actual first element of the array,
+ and the information about the lower bound would be lost because of
+ the coercion to pointer type.
+ */
value
value_coerce_array (arg1)
error ("Cannot invoke functions on this machine.");
}
#endif /* no CALL_DUMMY. */
+
\f
-/* Create a value for a string constant:
- Call the function malloc in the inferior to get space for it,
- then copy the data into that space
- and then return the address with type char *.
- PTR points to the string constant data; LEN is number of characters.
- Note that the string may contain embedded null bytes. */
+/* Create a value for an array by allocating space in the inferior, copying
+ the data into that space, and then setting up an array value.
+
+ The array bounds are set from LOWBOUND and HIGHBOUND, and the array is
+ populated from the values passed in ELEMVEC.
+
+ The element type of the array is inherited from the type of the
+ first element, and all elements must have the same size (though we
+ don't currently enforce any restriction on their types). */
value
-value_string (ptr, len)
- char *ptr;
- int len;
+value_array (lowbound, highbound, elemvec)
+ int lowbound;
+ int highbound;
+ value *elemvec;
{
- register value val;
- register struct symbol *sym;
- value blocklen;
+ int nelem;
+ int idx;
+ int typelength;
+ value val;
+ struct type *rangetype;
+ struct type *arraytype;
+ CORE_ADDR addr;
- /* Find the address of malloc in the inferior. */
+ /* Validate that the bounds are reasonable and that each of the elements
+ have the same size. */
- sym = lookup_symbol ("malloc", 0, VAR_NAMESPACE, 0, NULL);
- if (sym != NULL)
+ nelem = highbound - lowbound + 1;
+ if (nelem <= 0)
{
- if (SYMBOL_CLASS (sym) != LOC_BLOCK)
- error ("\"malloc\" exists in this program but is not a function.");
- val = value_of_variable (sym);
+ error ("bad array bounds (%d, %d)", lowbound, highbound);
}
- else
+ typelength = TYPE_LENGTH (VALUE_TYPE (elemvec[0]));
+ for (idx = 0; idx < nelem; idx++)
{
- struct minimal_symbol *msymbol;
- msymbol = lookup_minimal_symbol ("malloc", (struct objfile *) NULL);
- if (msymbol != NULL)
- val =
- value_from_longest (lookup_pointer_type (lookup_function_type (
- lookup_pointer_type (builtin_type_char))),
- (LONGEST) SYMBOL_VALUE_ADDRESS (msymbol));
- else
- error ("String constants require the program to have a function \"malloc\".");
+ if (TYPE_LENGTH (VALUE_TYPE (elemvec[idx])) != typelength)
+ {
+ error ("array elements must all be the same size");
+ }
}
- blocklen = value_from_longest (builtin_type_int, (LONGEST) (len + 1));
- val = call_function_by_hand (val, 1, &blocklen);
- if (value_logical_not (val))
- error ("No memory available for string constant.");
- write_memory (value_as_pointer (val), ptr, len + 1);
- VALUE_TYPE (val) = lookup_pointer_type (builtin_type_char);
- return val;
+ /* Allocate space to store the array in the inferior, and then initialize
+ it by copying in each element. FIXME: Is it worth it to create a
+ local buffer in which to collect each value and then write all the
+ bytes in one operation? */
+
+ addr = allocate_space_in_inferior (nelem * typelength);
+ for (idx = 0; idx < nelem; idx++)
+ {
+ write_memory (addr + (idx * typelength), VALUE_CONTENTS (elemvec[idx]),
+ typelength);
+ }
+
+ /* Create the array type and set up an array value to be evaluated lazily. */
+
+ rangetype = create_range_type ((struct type *) NULL, builtin_type_int,
+ lowbound, highbound);
+ arraytype = create_array_type ((struct type *) NULL,
+ VALUE_TYPE (elemvec[0]), rangetype);
+ val = value_at_lazy (arraytype, addr);
+ return (val);
+}
+
+/* Create a value for a string constant by allocating space in the inferior,
+ copying the data into that space, and returning the address with type
+ TYPE_CODE_STRING. PTR points to the string constant data; LEN is number
+ of characters.
+ Note that string types are like array of char types with a lower bound of
+ zero and an upper bound of LEN - 1. Also note that the string may contain
+ embedded null bytes. */
+
+value
+value_string (ptr, len)
+ char *ptr;
+ int len;
+{
+ value val;
+ struct type *rangetype;
+ struct type *stringtype;
+ CORE_ADDR addr;
+
+ /* Allocate space to store the string in the inferior, and then
+ copy LEN bytes from PTR in gdb to that address in the inferior. */
+
+ addr = allocate_space_in_inferior (len);
+ write_memory (addr, ptr, len);
+
+ /* Create the string type and set up a string value to be evaluated
+ lazily. */
+
+ rangetype = create_range_type ((struct type *) NULL, builtin_type_int,
+ 0, len - 1);
+ stringtype = create_string_type ((struct type *) NULL, rangetype);
+ val = value_at_lazy (stringtype, addr);
+ return (val);
}
\f
+/* Compare two argument lists and return the position in which they differ,
+ or zero if equal.
+
+ STATICP is nonzero if the T1 argument list came from a
+ static member function.
+
+ For non-static member functions, we ignore the first argument,
+ which is the type of the instance variable. This is because we want
+ to handle calls with objects from derived classes. This is not
+ entirely correct: we should actually check to make sure that a
+ requested operation is type secure, shouldn't we? FIXME. */
+
+static int
+typecmp (staticp, t1, t2)
+ int staticp;
+ struct type *t1[];
+ value t2[];
+{
+ int i;
+
+ if (t2 == 0)
+ return 1;
+ if (staticp && t1 == 0)
+ return t2[1] != 0;
+ if (t1 == 0)
+ return 1;
+ if (TYPE_CODE (t1[0]) == TYPE_CODE_VOID) return 0;
+ if (t1[!staticp] == 0) return 0;
+ for (i = !staticp; t1[i] && TYPE_CODE (t1[i]) != TYPE_CODE_VOID; i++)
+ {
+ if (! t2[i])
+ return i+1;
+ if (TYPE_CODE (t1[i]) == TYPE_CODE_REF
+ && TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (t1[i]) == VALUE_TYPE (t2[i]))
+ continue;
+ if (TYPE_CODE (t1[i]) != TYPE_CODE (VALUE_TYPE (t2[i])))
+ return i+1;
+ }
+ if (!t1[i]) return 0;
+ return t2[i] ? i+1 : 0;
+}
+
/* Helper function used by value_struct_elt to recurse through baseclasses.
Look for a field NAME in ARG1. Adjust the address of ARG1 by OFFSET bytes,
and search in it assuming it has (class) type TYPE.
return 0;
}
-/* Compare two argument lists and return the position in which they differ,
- or zero if equal.
-
- STATICP is nonzero if the T1 argument list came from a
- static member function.
-
- For non-static member functions, we ignore the first argument,
- which is the type of the instance variable. This is because we want
- to handle calls with objects from derived classes. This is not
- entirely correct: we should actually check to make sure that a
- requested operation is type secure, shouldn't we? FIXME. */
-
-int
-typecmp (staticp, t1, t2)
- int staticp;
- struct type *t1[];
- value t2[];
-{
- int i;
-
- if (t2 == 0)
- return 1;
- if (staticp && t1 == 0)
- return t2[1] != 0;
- if (t1 == 0)
- return 1;
- if (t1[0]->code == TYPE_CODE_VOID) return 0;
- if (t1[!staticp] == 0) return 0;
- for (i = !staticp; t1[i] && t1[i]->code != TYPE_CODE_VOID; i++)
- {
- if (! t2[i]
- || t1[i]->code != t2[i]->type->code
-/* Too pessimistic: || t1[i]->target_type != t2[i]->type->target_type */
- )
- return i+1;
- }
- if (!t1[i]) return 0;
- return t2[i] ? i+1 : 0;
-}
-
/* C++: return the value of the class instance variable, if one exists.
Flag COMPLAIN signals an error if the request is made in an
inappropriate context. */
projects / binutils-gdb.git / commitdiff