From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23065 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2008 18:07:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 22890 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Mar 2008 18:07:07 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:06:46 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2HI6isf030512 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:06:44 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m2HI6idS025921 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:06:44 -0400 Received: from ironwood.lan (vpn-15-174.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.15.174]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m2HI6iOJ006408 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:06:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:07:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Use compilation unit's address size in dwarf2expr.c and dwarf2loc.c Message-ID: <20080317110643.44441290@ironwood.lan> In-Reply-To: <200803171335.m2HDZ3ad032124@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> References: <20080315183834.35136a25@ironwood.lan> <200803171335.m2HDZ3ad032124@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.3.1 (GTK+ 2.12.5; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-03/txt/msg00236.txt.bz2 On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:35:03 +0100 (CET) "Ulrich Weigand" wrote: > Here is my current patch, based on Jim Blandy's orignal patch and on > Dan Jacobowitz' patch to fix DW_CFA_set_loc. With the exception of > the one FIXME in decode_frame_entry_1, this patch fixes all issues > related to dwarf address size handling that I'm aware of ... > > Tested on i386-linux, s390-linux, and s390x-linux. > > Does this look OK? I've tested your patch against the mips target upon which I was seeing address size related problems. The results are comparable to those obtained using the patch that I posted. So, as far as I'm concerned, your patch is okay to commit. Kevin