From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2212 invoked by alias); 26 Sep 2018 16:53:42 -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 1877 invoked by uid 89); 26 Sep 2018 16:53:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:53:40 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A78B1179EC; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:53:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 1xMtG5IwVrlN; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:53:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DCDE1179D4; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:53:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6CBCC87760; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 09:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:53:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Andrew Burgess Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, jimw@sifive.com, palmer@sifive.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb/riscv: Improve non-dwarf stack unwinding Message-ID: <20180926165333.GA11310@adacore.com> References: <20180919164138.16480-1-andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> <20180926134916.GB8955@adacore.com> <20180926151112.GL5952@embecosm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180926151112.GL5952@embecosm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-SW-Source: 2018-09/txt/msg00856.txt.bz2 > > Are you sure you want to assert on the register number? What if > > the instruction was malformed and the register number ended up > > being larger than RISCV_NUM_INTEGER_REGS; is that possible? > > Well, it shouldn't happen in the sense that, for a given instruction, > if it operates on integer registers then the space in the encoding > should only allow for up to RISCV_NUM_INTEGER_REGS registers (some > encodings allow for less registers). > > Right now I can't imagine a situation where one of those asserts could > fire and it's not either a bug in GDB, or a bug in the libopcode field > extraction code - hence an assert rather than an error. OK, that's perfect. Thanks for the confirmation! -- Joel