From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1078 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2012 17:19:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 1030 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Sep 2012 17:19:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 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; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:19:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8BHJafv018305 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:19:37 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-25.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.25]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8BHJWbS026643 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:19:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:19:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: Yao Qi , Doug Evans , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Don't allow setting register in non-innermost frame Message-ID: <20120911171932.GA23134@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <1345170040-25959-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <87hartpodt.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120907164544.GA18234@host2.jankratochvil.net> <504D49DA.6070006@codesourcery.com> <87ehm8a3gg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ehm8a3gg.fsf@fleche.redhat.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: 2012-09/txt/msg00164.txt.bz2 On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:12:31 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: > I would rather not use this approach. > My reason is that there is no obvious connection between > TYPE_OBJFILE_OWNED and register-ness -- and it is the sort of invariant > that is very difficult to ensure will remain true over time. > > If lval_register can't work, then another choice would be a new flag on > struct value. This would be somewhat ugly but, I think, more robust. I also did not like TYPE_OBJFILE_OWNED too much, I was thinking putting it possibly to evaluate_subexp_standard checking there LHS (left hand side) expression, not the LHS value. Sure one can easily create an expression escaping such check but it should catch the normal problematic case; if there is any. Thanks, Jan