From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19026 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2009 19:45:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 18926 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Sep 2009 19:45:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:44:55 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7871061F; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 19:44:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC866105BB; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 19:44:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MjIEl-0002Cj-Un; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:44:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:45:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Doug Evans Cc: tromey@redhat.com, Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Use data cache for stack accesses Message-ID: <20090903194451.GA8440@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Doug Evans , tromey@redhat.com, Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <7e6c8d660907081308r13bff580rdcf4822c77df8403@mail.gmail.com> <200907082146.40513.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00090.txt.bz2 On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 08:38:30AM -0700, Doug Evans wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: > > > > Doug> * dwarf2loc.c (dwarf2_evaluate_loc_desc): Mark values on stack with > > Doug> set_value_stack. > > > > I ran across this while merging the DW_OP_*_value patch. > > > > Do we really know that such values always come from the stack?  It seems > > plausible to me that this is the case in practice, but aren't compilers > > free to refer to any memory at all from a DWARF expression? > > Blech. It's a bit confusing. > > I don't honestly know. > I'll do some research. They can come from the stack, or elsewhere. You might be able to track based-on (similar to how prologue-value.h does it) to identify CFA-relative accesses. DW_OP_deref has to clear it, though. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery