From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19865 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2005 13:45:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 19844 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2005 13:45:47 -0000 Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:45:47 +0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jAIDjbi5009938; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:45:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id jAIDjaFY025349; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:45:36 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id jAIDjZNc026609; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:45:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:21:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200511181345.jAIDjZNc026609@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: frederic.riss@st.com CC: jimb@red-bean.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <1132317183.8685.101.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> (message from Frederic RISS on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:33:03 +0100) Subject: Re: [RFC] DW_CFA_restore handling causes memory fault References: <1132242850.8685.47.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> <8f2776cb0511171132x17fa4192u6ca5af71201e0be3@mail.gmail.com> <1132301881.8685.63.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> <8f2776cb0511180035ndadf290ta81520f75cf601d5@mail.gmail.com> <1132317183.8685.101.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00324.txt.bz2 > X-From_: gdb-patches-return-41536-m.m.kettenis=alumnus.utwente.nl@sourceware.org Fri Nov 18 13:38:27 2005 > From: Frederic RISS > 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