Re: [RFC] DW_CFA_restore handling causes memory fault

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> X-From_: gdb-patches-return-41536-m.m.kettenis=alumnus.utwente.nl@sourceware.org  Fri Nov 18 13:38:27 2005
> From: Frederic RISS <frederic.riss@st.com>
> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:33:03 +0100
> 
> On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 00:35 -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > Yes!  But --- I apologize for not noticing this from the beginning ---
> > as I see your comment, it occurs to me that probably a call to
> > 'complaint' would be better than just a comment.  Mark or Daniel can
> > string me up if they feel this will yield another 'incomplete CFI
> > data; unspecified blah blah blah' annoyance, but I think it's probably
> > the right thing.

On the highest tree!  Seriously though, if it turns out to be a major
annoyance, we can always do something about it later.  So this is fine
to me ;-).

> OK, third try attached. I mimiced the formatting of other complaints of
> the file. I didn't put the complaint in the 'else' clause, but added a
> check after the whole 'if', because an allocated register state isn't
> necessarily set to a correct value.

That could possibly lead to two complaints about the same
"unspecified" register, but let's see what happens with this patch.

> Just a question: why are the i18n'ified strings formatted this way ?

Formatted in what way?  Starting in column 0?  Well, that's because
it's easier to see whether the string will be longer than 80
characters, which your string will be once the %s is filled in.  So
could you split the string over two lines?  You're going to have to do
that anyway, because I'm going to ask you to make a little change: can
you also print the register number for the register that the complaint
is about?

Thanks,

Mark