From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28788 invoked by alias); 23 May 2012 17:46:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 28780 invoked by uid 22791); 23 May 2012 17:46:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,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; Wed, 23 May 2012 17:46:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4NHkFr0014172 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 13:46:16 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-78.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.78]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4NHkB7Z027608 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 23 May 2012 13:46:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 17:46:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Siddhesh Poyarekar Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Expand bitpos and type.length to LONGEST and ULONGEST Message-ID: <20120523174610.GA23405@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120220132724.GB4753@spoyarek.pnq.redhat.com> <20120221210235.GA26897@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120504183858.67d416b7@spoyarek> <20120515200454.GA11338@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120523192245.0f785e69@spoyarek> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120523192245.0f785e69@spoyarek> 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: 2012-05/txt/msg00909.txt.bz2 Hi Siddhesh, On Wed, 23 May 2012 15:52:45 +0200, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > > static void > > > -copy_bitwise (gdb_byte *dest, unsigned int dest_offset_bits, > > > - const gdb_byte *source, unsigned int > > > source_offset_bits, > > > - unsigned int bit_count, > > > +copy_bitwise (gdb_byte *dest, ULONGEST dest_offset_bits, > > > + const gdb_byte *source, ULONGEST source_offset, > > > + ULONGEST bit_count, > > > int bits_big_endian) > > > { > > > - unsigned int dest_avail; > > > + unsigned int dest_avail, source_offset_bits; > > > int datum; > > > > > > /* Reduce everything to byte-size pieces. */ > > > dest += dest_offset_bits / 8; > > > dest_offset_bits %= 8; > > > - source += source_offset_bits / 8; > > > - source_offset_bits %= 8; > > > + source += source_offset / 8; > > > + source_offset_bits = source_offset % 8; > > > > I do not fully understand this whole change but it looks unrelated to > > this patch to me. > > I had to split up the source_offset and source_offset bits because > source_offset can be LONGEST but the bits would always be less than 8. > I did this because otherwise I would have had to change signatures of > functions that use source_offset_bits even when it is not really needed > (extract_bits and extract_bits_primitive). OK, understood now. Therefore just to make splint quiet. Just in such case - without running splint now myself - dest_offset_bits seems to have exactly the same problem, it is passed to insert_bits. > > static int > > symfile_target_read_memory (CORE_ADDR memaddr, gdb_byte *myaddr, int > > len) { > > return target_read_memory (memaddr, myaddr, len); > > } > > > > But I proposed to rather target_read_memory use size_t and we should > > then proposed to bfd/ that it also uses size_t for > > bfd_elf_bfd_from_remote_memory. > > Perhaps it will be helpful if I keep this change (and consequently the > rest of the read/write_memory function changes) as a separate patch? Yes, this size_t change - needs to be also posted to binutils@sourceware.org for approval (the bfd/ part). I think it should be done first and the mail to binutils@sourceware.org (Cc gdb-patches) should not contain parts affecting only gdb/ (it should contain parts needed to keep gdb/ compatible with the bfd/ changes). Also maybe binutils will have different opinion on it. Thanks, Jan