From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 33607 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2017 15:13:33 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 33597 invoked by uid 89); 8 Dec 2017 15:13:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-12.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=extent X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (HELO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) (148.163.156.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 15:13:29 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id vB8FD4I0107713 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 10:13:27 -0500 Received: from e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.109]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2eqvs71kh1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 10:13:27 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 15:13:25 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.143) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 15:13:23 -0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id vB8FDNCq64946210; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 15:13:23 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F7CA404D; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 15:07:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1D0A405E; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 15:07:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc3748833570.ibm.com (unknown [9.164.172.176]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 15:07:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: by oc3748833570.ibm.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 30013D8048A; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 16:13:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Clear non-significant bits of address on memory access To: palves@redhat.com (Pedro Alves) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 15:13:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: qiyaoltc@gmail.com (Yao Qi), gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <31f27d40-a931-c996-09d5-f60f77ac6ca3@redhat.com> from "Pedro Alves" at Dec 08, 2017 12:22:25 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 17120815-0012-0000-0000-00000596DE64 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17120815-0013-0000-0000-00001911E812 Message-Id: <20171208151322.30013D8048A@oc3748833570.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-12-08_08:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=735 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1712080210 X-SW-Source: 2017-12/txt/msg00187.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > On 12/08/2017 10:04 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > > --- a/gdb/aarch64-linux-tdep.c > > +++ b/gdb/aarch64-linux-tdep.c > > @@ -1217,6 +1217,8 @@ aarch64_linux_init_abi (struct gdbarch_info info, struct gdbarch *gdbarch) > > set_xml_syscall_file_name (gdbarch, "syscalls/aarch64-linux.xml"); > > set_gdbarch_get_syscall_number (gdbarch, aarch64_linux_get_syscall_number); > > > > + set_gdbarch_significant_addr_bit (gdbarch, 56); > > + > > I think adding the comment about "tag" here would be nice. > > The top bits of an address are known as the "tag" and are > ignored by the kernel, the hardware, etc. and can be regarded > as additional data associated with the address. */ > set_gdbarch_significant_addr_bit (gdbarch, 56); > > BTW, since this is ignored by the hardware, should it be done > in aarch64-tdep.c instead of just for Linux? > > Looks good to me otherwise. This seems to duplicate the functionality of gdbarch_addr_bits_remove to some extent ... Could those be merged back again? Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com