From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7462 invoked by alias); 12 May 2006 14:19:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 7447 invoked by uid 22791); 12 May 2006 14:19:46 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from w099.z064220152.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net (HELO duck.specifix.com) (64.220.152.99) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 May 2006 14:19:43 +0000 Received: from [::1] (duck.specifix.com [64.220.152.99]) by duck.specifix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C6AFFCD1; Fri, 12 May 2006 07:19:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Fred Fish Reply-To: fnf@specifix.com To: Jim Blandy Subject: Re: [RFC] DWARF 2 address size != pointer size Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 14:21:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, fnf@specifix.com References: <200605101424.11088.fnf@specifix.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200605121020.27657.fnf@specifix.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: 2006-05/txt/msg00245.txt.bz2 On Thursday 11 May 2006 18:44, Jim Blandy wrote: > Technically, this isn't quite right, since each CU could potentially > have a different address size. It's not a global property of the > debug info. Correct. I think my patches have a comment related to that. > Here's the patch; is it addressing the same thing yours does? I'm not > sure it deals with frame info right, but I'm pretty sure the rest of > it is going in the right direction: I tried applying it, but it didn't apply cleanly and I gave up trying to fix it up after I found out it uses code that was deleted a couple years ago (dwarf2_pinfo for example). -Fred