From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17472 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2011 20:11:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 17454 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Oct 2011 20:11:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:11:37 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9CKBYNF019780 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:11:34 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-16.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.16]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9CKBWaO025491 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:11:33 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9CKBVTQ022227; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:11:31 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p9CKBUfg022219; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:11:30 +0200 Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:11:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix internal error on optimized-out values (regression by me) Message-ID: <20111012201130.GA21491@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20110926191132.GA30401@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20111010205407.GA5193@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201110102240.28440.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2011-10/txt/msg00371.txt.bz2 On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:02:45 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: > Given this I tend to think that the patch that went in is incorrect, Which patch do you refer to here? Neither of the two proposed patch of mine in this threads went it yet. > in > that it may break operations on an SRA'd structure where some bits are > optimized away. I thought I added tests for this, not sure though. Missing DW_AT_data_member_location is defined as offset 0. Not sure how an optimized out field should look like. Empty DWARF block will just not modify the struct base address, therefore it may mean also the offset 0 instead of optimized-out value. And popping the base address keeping the stack empty is not an empty DWARF block then. I tried some testcase but I failed to force GCC making a field optimized out. Thanks, Jan