From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23982 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2012 11:24:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 23973 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Sep 2012 11:24:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,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; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 11:24:33 +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 q83BOUSl020690 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 3 Sep 2012 07:24:30 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-25.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.25]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q83BOQUl016784 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Sep 2012 07:24:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 11:24:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Andrew Burgess , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: PATCH: error reading variable: value has been optimized out Message-ID: <20120903112425.GA9954@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <50376F3B.1080407@broadcom.com> <20120826171840.GA21205@host2.jankratochvil.net> <504092C0.2000602@broadcom.com> <83harip386.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83harip386.fsf@gnu.org> 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: 2012-09/txt/msg00016.txt.bz2 On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 10:16:41 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > [...] but as gcc is no longer creating examples like this I think we can > > accept the more limited solution I originally suggessted, if that's ok. > > "No longer creating" since what version of GCC? I did not check this specific case but these kinds of registers validity in general are fixed since FSF GCC 4.5 with the introduction of VTA (-fvar-tracking-assignments). Regards, Jan