Re: [PATCH] Big-endian targets: don't ignore offset into DW_OP_implicit_value

[Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>]

On 17-01-12 20:24:27, Andreas Arnez wrote:
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/dw2-op-stack-value.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/dw2-op-stack-value.exp
> index c28dcca..808f983 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/dw2-op-stack-value.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/dw2-op-stack-value.exp
> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ gdb_test_multiple $test $test {
>      -re ":\[ \t\]*0xaa551234\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
>  	# big endian
>  	pass $test
> -	gdb_test "p/x implicit4to2" " = 0x3344"
> +	gdb_test "p/x implicit4to2" " = 0x1122"
>  	gdb_test "p/x implicit4to4" " = 0x11223344"

It takes me a while to understand this.  I am wondering is it a valid
test case? how does compiler generate a DIE for a 2-byte variable
from a 4-byte implicit value.  DWARF spec isn't clear on this case to
me.  It has nothing to do with your patch, but I just raise this
question when I read your patch.

> +# Byte-aligned objects with simple location descriptions.
> +switch $endian { big {set val 0x345678} little {set val 0x785634} }
> +gdb_test "print/x def_implicit_s" " = \\{a = 0x12, b = $val\\}"
> +gdb_test "print/x def_implicit_s.b" " = $val"
> +gdb_test "print/x def_implicit_a" \
> +    " = \\{0x1, 0x12, 0x23, 0x34, 0x45, 0x56, 0x67, 0x78, 0x89\\}"

All these values are from debug information rather than inferior memory,
does it make sense to run these tests above with both big and little
endianess?

Otherwise, patch is good to me.

-- 
Yao