From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1417 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2009 23:01:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 998 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Sep 2009 23:01:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:01:21 +0000 Received: (qmail 15263 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2009 23:01:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 4 Sep 2009 23:01:14 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey Subject: Re: RFC: implement DW_OP_stack_value and DW_OP_implicit_value Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:01:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200909050001.11926.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00107.txt.bz2 On Friday 04 September 2009 23:33:54, Tom Tromey wrote: > I added an 'arch' field to piece_closure because we need the objfile's > architecture when decoding a stack value; I think we can't use the > frame's architecture because we might not have a frame. That sounds strange to me. When would we be reading things off the stack and not have a frame? -- Pedro Alves