Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
To: tromey@redhat.com (Tom Tromey)
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: RFC: implement typed DWARF stack
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 15:50:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201105161550.p4GFo5hk014748@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m3aaerlnox.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> from "Tom Tromey" at May 12, 2011 01:32:30 PM

Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Ulrich" == Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> Tom> Yes.  My understanding is that for new-style typed values, DW_OP_shr and
> Tom> DW_OP_shra are actually the same -- the type indicates the operation to
> Tom> perform.  But, for old-style values, we must cast to unsigned for
> Tom> DW_OP_shr.
> 
> Ulrich> I see.  However, the code as implemented casts *all* signed values to
> Ulrich> unsigned for DW_OP_shr, not just old-style values.  That's what got
> Ulrich> me confused ...
> 
> I mentioned this on the GCC list and Jakub said that GCC actually emits
> code assuming that the operation will always be unsigned.
> 
> So, I am reverting my change here.  Patch appended.

So just to clarify: in the discussion a while back, you said:

> Ulrich> B.t.w. your patch always performs an unsigned shift for
> Ulrich> DW_OP_shr, even on signed operands.  However, for DW_OP_shra,
> Ulrich> your patch respects the sign of the operands and might actually
> Ulrich> perform an unsigned shift (even though the opcode explicitly
> Ulrich> says "arithmetic right shift" ...)  This looks like another of
> Ulrich> those signed/unsigned inconsistencies with the proposal to me.
> 
> Yes.  My understanding is that for new-style typed values, DW_OP_shr and
> DW_OP_shra are actually the same -- the type indicates the operation to
> perform.  But, for old-style values, we must cast to unsigned for
> DW_OP_shr.

With this latest patch, it is now definitely *not* the case that DW_OP_shr
and DW_OP_shra behave the same on new-style typed values.  Instead, as I
pointed out originally, DW_OP_shr now always performs an unsigned operation,
while DW_OP_shra respects the value's type ...

Is that really what was intended?  Or should rather DW_OP_shra now also
be changed (to always perform a signed operation as its name suggests)?

Bye,
Ulrich

-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
  Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com


  reply	other threads:[~2011-05-16 15:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-05-04 20:48 Tom Tromey
2011-05-05 16:47 ` Tom Tromey
2011-05-05 18:07 ` Ulrich Weigand
2011-05-05 18:38   ` Tom Tromey
2011-05-05 20:15     ` Tom Tromey
2011-05-09 22:02       ` Ulrich Weigand
2011-05-10 14:15         ` Tom Tromey
2011-05-11  0:15           ` Ulrich Weigand
2011-05-11 14:59             ` Tom Tromey
2011-05-11 19:44               ` Tom Tromey
2011-05-12  0:03               ` Ulrich Weigand
2011-05-12 16:33                 ` Tom Tromey
2011-05-13  7:52                   ` Regression: " Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-13 15:44                     ` Tom Tromey
2011-05-15  8:26                       ` gdbindex crash: " Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-16 17:37                         ` Tom Tromey
2011-05-17 17:01                           ` Tom Tromey
2011-05-13 17:17                     ` Tom Tromey
2011-05-13 17:34                       ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-12 19:32             ` Tom Tromey
2011-05-16 15:50               ` Ulrich Weigand [this message]
2011-05-16 18:09                 ` Tom Tromey
2011-05-17  8:35                   ` Jakub Jelinek
2011-06-03 13:52                     ` Tom Tromey
2011-05-10 16:39         ` Tom Tromey

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=201105161550.p4GFo5hk014748@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com \
    --to=uweigand@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=tromey@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox