From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 728 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2012 21:03:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 709 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Mar 2012 21:03:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:03:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D4D1C66D3; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:03:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id CNfwMNNx9U8u; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:03:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49FA51C66B9; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:03:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B41F5145615; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:03:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:03:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Roland Schwingel Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add dll trampoline code handling for windows 64bit Message-ID: <20120314210310.GJ2853@adacore.com> References: <4F610188.5010001@onevision.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F610188.5010001@onevision.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00516.txt.bz2 > There is a script called gdb_indent.sh in gdb's root dir. I applied > it on amd64-windows-nat.c ahead of getting out my patch thinking > that this would be the correct way. Some misunderstanding as it > produced most of your indention concerns. That is very odd, the script should indeed indent the sources in a way that follows the GNU Coding Standards. Perhaps we are missing some parameters in the call to that script that override certain defaults that may no longer match our standards. But FWIW, we have rarely used that script in the past few years. I think that this is because GNU indent, the tool that it uses underneath, isn't very smart and often produces a layout that's worse than what a human would produce. I should also say that we have a lot of violations to the GCS spread around the code, and it's very common for someone to copy/paste them, or introduce new ones on their own. I know I do, occasionally. I have observed that we have been trying harder in the recent past to be stricter and more aware of them. It's a bit of a pain both for the contributor and the reviewer, but it's easy to fix, and I think it's for the best in the end. > Before doing it "my" way I already played around with both > read_memory_typed_address and read_memory_unsigned_integer > but did not get the correct CORE_ADDR. The bytes were always > in the wrong order believing that these are endianess issues. Will > reinvestigate that when back at the office. Anyhow my approach > appears to be working, too. I succesfully single stepped thru > many dlls using my patch on win64 which was not possible before. That's odd, particulary if you tested with a native GDB? Perhaps the address is stored in a different way, but that would also be very surprising. Good luck with the hunting! -- Joel