From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20155 invoked by alias); 5 Jul 2002 23:18:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20133 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2002 23:18:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (213.93.114.42) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Jul 2002 23:18:28 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g65NIQe01386; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 01:18:26 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g65NIPR00673; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 01:18:25 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 19:10:00 -0000 From: Mark Kettenis Message-Id: <200207052318.g65NIPR00673@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> To: jimb@redhat.com CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Jim Blandy on 04 Jul 2002 22:27:02 -0500) Subject: Re: [RFC] Implementation of DW_OP_deref and DW_OP_deref_size operators References: <200207042202.g64M2hT62589@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 Sender: jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Jim Blandy Date: 04 Jul 2002 22:27:02 -0500 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Jim Blandy writes: > Yes! However, pointers are not always unsigned. I think on some > 32-bit ABIs for 64-bit MIPS chips they need to be signed. Andrew will > know the facts. But it doesn't matter whether pointers are unsigned. The Dwarf spec says that DW_OP_deref pushes a value which is "the size of an address on the target machine", which is the full width of a Dwarf expression stack element; it doesn't need to be extended. And it further says that DW_OP_deref_size zero-extends its argument. So the patch looks correct to me. Yup, I came to the same conclusion. The code that was origionally there also used unsigned pointers. I'll check it in. Thanks, Mark