This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [rfc] Fix bitfield regressions on 64-bit big-endian targets


Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> It looks like the code you're fixing was completely bogus.
> 
> > !             && ((LONGEST) value_address (toval) % TYPE_LENGTH (type)) == 0)
> 
> What does that even mean?  We set v->offset, both before and after the
> patch you're replying to, but we never set value->location.address.
> Are we only testing this in registers somehow where no address was
> required?  Or am I missing where the location was set?

Well, it seems to me that value_primitive_field calls
set_value_component_location in all cases, which copies
the location information over to the new value ...

In any case, the code you quote above was introduced by
your initial lazy bitfields patch:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-07/msg00437.html

> Your patch looks fine to me.

Thanks for the review.  I've committed the patch now.

Bye,
Ulrich

-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
  Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]