From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1286 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2009 09:20:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 1278 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Sep 2009 09:20:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtagate1.de.ibm.com (HELO mtagate1.de.ibm.com) (195.212.17.161) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:20:39 +0000 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate1.de.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n8S9KWt1028115 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:20:32 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n8S9KWZs3334370 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:20:32 +0200 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n8S9KWDf008971 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:20:32 +0200 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id n8S9KVeK008925; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:20:31 +0200 Message-Id: <200909280920.n8S9KVeK008925@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:20:31 +0200 Subject: Re: [rfc] Fix bitfield regressions on 64-bit big-endian targets To: drow@false.org (Daniel Jacobowitz) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:20:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20090927222844.GA32132@caradoc.them.org> from "Daniel Jacobowitz" at Sep 27, 2009 06:28:44 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00861.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > It looks like the code you're fixing was completely bogus. > > > ! && ((LONGEST) value_address (toval) % TYPE_LENGTH (type)) == 0) > > What does that even mean? We set v->offset, both before and after the > patch you're replying to, but we never set value->location.address. > Are we only testing this in registers somehow where no address was > required? Or am I missing where the location was set? Well, it seems to me that value_primitive_field calls set_value_component_location in all cases, which copies the location information over to the new value ... In any case, the code you quote above was introduced by your initial lazy bitfields patch: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-07/msg00437.html > Your patch looks fine to me. Thanks for the review. I've committed the patch now. Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com