From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18813 invoked by alias); 26 Sep 2018 19:15:50 -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 5747 invoked by uid 89); 26 Sep 2018 19:15:29 -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 19:15:27 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A14B5117CA2; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 15:15:16 -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 MejcAXZ+nUC3; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 15:15:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C81D117B63; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 15:15:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C2C6687772; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:15:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 19:15:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Palmer Dabbelt Cc: andrew.burgess@embecosm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jim Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb/riscv: Improve non-dwarf stack unwinding Message-ID: <20180926191514.GA2448@adacore.com> References: <20180926151112.GL5952@embecosm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-SW-Source: 2018-09/txt/msg00859.txt.bz2 > While I agree this is true for I-based ISAs, I think this might be able to > fire for E-based ISAs because those can actually encode invalid register > indices. That said, these should be decoded as invalid instructions so I > think we're safe here. I'm OK either way (ie, abort or warn). And FWIW, I agree that should the register number be invalid in the instruction, the error should be reported during the decoding. So the asserts here are good. -- Joel