From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7299 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2011 16:36:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 7218 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Oct 2011 16:36:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FAKE_REPLY_C,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; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:36:27 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9DGaNTX013672 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:36:23 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-16.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.16]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9DGaKsf018164 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:36:22 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9DGaKb6012376; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:36:20 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p9DGaJ3e012371; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:36:19 +0200 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:36:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey , Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix internal error on optimized-out values (regression by me) Message-ID: <20111013163619.GA11516@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201110131627.34943.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00403.txt.bz2 On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:18:27 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: > Jan> Missing DW_AT_data_member_location is defined as offset 0. Not > Jan> sure how an optimized out field should look like. > > It would be an empty DW_OP_piece. I forgot, OK, GCC makes optimized out the value bits, not the type definition. That is still compatible with the first patch. On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:27:34 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Wednesday 12 October 2011 21:33:29, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > This would suggest the user-visible behavior should be more the former patch: > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-09/msg00449.html > > printing > > Yes. Checked in: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2011-10/msg00114.html Thanks, Jan