2003-06-03 Andrew Cagney <cagney@redhat.com>

	* frame.c (get_frame_memory_signed): New function.
	(get_frame_memory, get_frame_memory_unsigned): New function.
	(get_frame_arch): New function.
	* frame.h (get_frame_signed_memory, get_frame_arch): Declare.
	(get_frame_memory, get_frame_unsigned_memory): Declare.
	* d10v-tdep.c (d10v_frame_unwind_cache): Use
	get_frame_memory_unsigned and get_frame_arch.
	(d10v_frame_unwind_cache, saved_regs_unwinder): Ditto.

1 files changed, 25 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/gdb/frame.h b/gdb/frame.h
index 0abb08e..bfd9469 100644
--- a/gdb/frame.h
+++ b/gdb/frame.h
@@ -343,6 +343,31 @@ extern CORE_ADDR frame_pc_unwind (struct frame_info *frame);
    of the caller.  */
 extern void frame_pop (struct frame_info *frame);
 
+/* Return memory from the specified frame.  A frame knows its thread /
+   LWP and hence can find its way down to a target.  The assumption
+   here is that the current and previous frame share a common address
+   space.
+
+   If the memory read fails, these methods throw an error.
+
+   NOTE: cagney/2003-06-03: Should there be unwind versions of these
+   methods?  That isn't clear.  Can code, for instance, assume that
+   this and the previous frame's memory or architecture are identical?
+   If architecture / memory changes are always separated by special
+   adaptor frames this should be ok.  */
+
+extern void get_frame_memory (struct frame_info *this_frame, CORE_ADDR addr,
+			      void *buf, int len);
+extern LONGEST get_frame_memory_signed (struct frame_info *this_frame,
+					CORE_ADDR memaddr, int len);
+extern ULONGEST get_frame_memory_unsigned (struct frame_info *this_frame,
+					   CORE_ADDR memaddr, int len);
+
+/* Return this frame's architecture.  */
+
+extern struct gdbarch *get_frame_arch (struct frame_info *this_frame);
+
+
 /* Values for the source flag to be used in print_frame_info_base(). */
 enum print_what
   {