From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27596 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2009 16:33:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 27588 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Sep 2009 16:33:58 -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; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:33:51 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D3110EA3; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:34:18 +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 0396910E9F; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:34:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MsJAb-0000QD-QE; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:33:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Fix bitfield regressions on 64-bit big-endian targets Message-ID: <20090928163349.GB1529@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20090927222844.GA32132@caradoc.them.org> <200909280920.n8S9KVeK008925@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200909280920.n8S9KVeK008925@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> 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/msg00867.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:20:31AM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > 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 ... So it does. The representation I'm using here may not be well-advised, in that case, but at least you've made us consistent again. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery