From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9246 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2008 13:39:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 9236 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jan 2008 13:39:18 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:38:52 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68AB898375; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:38:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D9298100; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:38:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JI2I0-0004F4-B3; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:38:44 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:45:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: Jim Blandy , gdb-patches Subject: Re: arm_addr_bits_remove Message-ID: <20080124133844.GA15771@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , Jim Blandy , gdb-patches References: <47965D31.3040602@codesourcery.com> <8f2776cb0801221525w1d26661dgf6452f876197a591@mail.gmail.com> <479752C8.8030201@portugalmail.pt> <8f2776cb0801231121r3fe9aea0q6f3c3d6887fcb251@mail.gmail.com> <20080123192842.GA22477@caradoc.them.org> <8f2776cb0801231311o19c31781h8a4663c405bcd22b@mail.gmail.com> <479819E2.1030603@portugalmail.pt> <8f2776cb0801232227n64502d4akef4642b051e77772@mail.gmail.com> <4798871B.4080207@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4798871B.4080207@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00583.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:39:55PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: > Jim Blandy wrote: >> On Jan 23, 2008 8:53 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >>> Would a patch removing this be more acceptable then? >> >> I'd certainly be more enthusiastic about it. :) >> > > Well, then, here's one for the review-enthusiasts amongst us. :-) If you're daring enough, this is OK - this could affect any target defining gdbarch_addr_bits_remove so keep an eye out in case hppa, m88k, mips, or s390 break. Please wait another day before checking it in, in case someone else knows more about it. I think the original patch should be committed too. Jim objected in terms of "returning the wrong answer", but that's not really the case. The 0x2 bit is never an extra piece of information about an address, like the 0x1 bit is. It's part of the address; just if it happens to be part of an ARM address, executing code there is unpredictable. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery