From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4229 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2010 00:20:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 4212 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2010 00:20:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 00:20:25 +0000 Received: from int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o560K4uM004909 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:20:04 -0400 Received: from psique.localnet (vpn-227-66.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.227.66]) by int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o560K2Sx023532; Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:20:03 -0400 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: [PATCH] Forbid watchpoint on a constant value Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 00:20:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.32.12-115.fc12.x86_64; KDE/4.4.3; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, tromey@redhat.com References: <20100521070500.GA30452@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <201006050150.08687.sergiodj@redhat.com> <20100605143752.GA14558@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20100605143752.GA14558@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201006052120.01863.sergiodj@redhat.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: 2010-06/txt/msg00158.txt.bz2 On Saturday 05 June 2010 11:37:52, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > The DWARF spec http://www.dwarfstd.org/doc/DWARF4-public-review.pdf contains > neither LOC_BLOCK nor TYPE_CODE_FUNC. But I have checked now TYPE_CODE_FUNC > and LOC_BLOCK are IMO equivalent at least for the DWARF symbols in this case > as being read in by dwarf2read.c. The DWARF spec doesn't contain LOC_BLOCK nor TYPE_CODE_FUNC because they're specific to GDB internals. Instead of it, I took a look into GDB source and found the related DWARF elements associated to LOC_BLOCK (I already knew the TYPE_CODE_FUNC was used for routines, so I assumed it used the DWARF elements to describe a routine). Given that, I found that LOC_BLOCK is used in the same situation as TYPE_CODE_FUNC, and that's why I concluded that both are equivalent. -- Sergio Durigan Junior Red Hat