From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30803 invoked by alias); 24 May 2012 01:36:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 30625 invoked by uid 22791); 24 May 2012 01:36:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,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; Thu, 24 May 2012 01:36:09 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4O1a8Vq012157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 21:36:08 -0400 Received: from spoyarek (vpn-231-71.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.231.71]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4O1a6cp023748; Wed, 23 May 2012 21:36:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 01:36:00 -0000 From: Siddhesh Poyarekar To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Expand bitpos and type.length to LONGEST and ULONGEST Message-ID: <20120524070634.4e346d9d@spoyarek> In-Reply-To: <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> <20120523174610.GA23405@host2.jankratochvil.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00920.txt.bz2 On Wed, 23 May 2012 19:46:10 +0200, Jan wrote: > 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. dest_offset_bits is safe to be truncated when passing into insert_bits. The trouble with source_offset_bits is that its pointer is passed into extract_bits, because of which the function signature change becomes non-optional unless just a cast is OK here. > 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. OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll do this first. Regards, Siddhesh