This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: fix bug in pieced value with offset
On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:54:43 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
>
> Jan> On Fri, 14 May 2010 19:29:33 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >> >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
> Jan> Thinking now if the BFD_ENDIAN_BIG patch by Ulrich Weigand
> Jan> [rfc] Handle DWARF-2 value pieces residing in *parts* of a register
> Jan> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-12/msg00305.html
> Jan> should not have been applied also for DWARF_VALUE_STACK; but this
> Jan> is outside of the scope of this patch.
> [...]
> Jan> I am sorry, s/should not have/should have/. Does it make sense now?
>
> Yeah. However I think this is adequately handled by store_unsigned_integer.
> Is it not?
Yes, you are right. OK, the current FSF GDB HEAD code is right.
> Jan> I agree with your sentence. I do not agree your sentence describes
> Jan> your code. The comparison present in code is exactly the opposite
> Jan> one. Your sentence describes "n < c->addr_size".
[...]
> Issuing a complaint in this code is somewhat strange. We don't have
> information about where the piece originated. I think it would be
> better to issue complaints in execute_stack_op...
That's true. And read_pieced_value could contain only gdb_assert.
Thanks,
Jan