This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] [1/2] value_fetch_lazy - ensure parent is not lazy before accessing.
- From: "Andrew Burgess" <aburgess at broadcom dot com>
- To: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Cc: "Pedro Alves" <palves at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:22:42 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [1/2] value_fetch_lazy - ensure parent is not lazy before accessing.
- References: <51DEC28A dot 60701 at broadcom dot com> <51F7D171 dot 4010909 at redhat dot com>
On 30/07/2013 3:45 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 03:34 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>
> The:
>
>> - if (!value_bits_valid (val,
>> + if (!value_bits_valid (parent,
>
> change gave me pause, as it wasn't mentioned in the email.
> It just looked like a mistake in your patch, as one would
> only expect the new value_fetch_lazy call, and nothing else.
> But, looking deeper, AFAICS, that change is correct, we were
> looking at the wrong value, even if the lazy issue didn't exist.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong. (I'd have preferred that bit to
> have been a separate, preparatory change with its own
> justification, or at least that this had been mentioned in the
> email. Don't assume what's obvious to you is obvious to others.)
Apologies for the poor description in the email. You did figure out
what I intended.
I committed the fix, with a slightly revised ChangeLog message to
emphasise the two aspects of the patch:
gdb/ChangeLog
* value.c (value_fetch_lazy): Ensure parent value is not lazy
before checking which bits of the parent, not the child, value are
valid.
Thanks,
Andrew