From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 114544 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2016 15:49:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 114495 invoked by uid 89); 22 Nov 2016 15:49:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=inspired, Restrict, HERE X-HELO: mail-pg0-f67.google.com Received: from mail-pg0-f67.google.com (HELO mail-pg0-f67.google.com) (74.125.83.67) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 15:48:55 +0000 Received: by mail-pg0-f67.google.com with SMTP id e9so2414293pgc.1 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 07:48:54 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id; bh=GApJW3SX5AZEPoNCRpgsMuaHn7XgZ/D1Md6RN+w5aR8=; b=CN2JwmWzAkwanMPHgaXMcbkjlVgUGVhzlC52akJuE2+YYpKTH8HWGnq+3GSXiw/Jvt GlvfJ79G982M7+jaLkh6ISW/bOWwk8p9CeoSB4Mq5vMBy7kxj5iCD5AnTX+CX2sWjIal 8SJv4flPVTGMpi4+w5WSN/dsGsOyJFIOurMRSoZxdlqKn/E5luj+/qXs/Kp7zZHlc5tw 9c8rs6G4W353UAXKaS/CtFpaSKXRGatpni/N170xWg+t42eKJXmgim9nvNWn6+T0m8Wz mDgKcjAXVzmjQlvZbFaZ3+WugTnUIc7KjXBJvn4z1jgH9dNSMSpXfFzO3YQH+l4nrvc3 FPDg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00zgn+3SBI2YdVT8IgqAR7ZlZ5lyoS6m7jQSikW2Quaeph1argK7iRPEpqW+KTAzA== X-Received: by 10.84.208.227 with SMTP id c32mr925328plj.144.1479829733283; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 07:48:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from E107787-LIN.cambridge.arm.com (gcc1-power7.osuosl.org. [140.211.15.137]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o68sm46198774pfb.42.2016.11.22.07.48.52 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Nov 2016 07:48:52 -0800 (PST) From: Yao Qi X-Google-Original-From: Yao Qi To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: [PATCH 0/3] New function value_has_address Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 15:49:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1479829721-22162-1-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00627.txt.bz2 This patch series is inspired by the discussion in this thread https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00741.html in which I only added value_has_address. During the discussion, looks value_has_address should be true only for lval_memory and lval_register, then, I restrict value_has_address (done in patch #3), and trigger a lot of assertions, because VALUE_VAL is not set properly before set_value_address. Patch #2 fixes these problems. Patch series is regression tested on x86_64-linux. Note that, I also find that value_has_address may only return true for lval_memory, because I can't see how VALUE->location.address is valid to lval_register. Of course, I can be wrong, so further analysis is needed. *** BLURB HERE *** Yao Qi (3): New function value_has_address Set VALUE_VAL before set_value_address Restrict value_has_address gdb/ada-lang.c | 2 +- gdb/elfread.c | 2 ++ gdb/value.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++----------- 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) -- 1.9.1