From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2602 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2005 10:18:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2593 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Oct 2005 10:18:08 -0000 Received: from lon-del-03.spheriq.net (HELO lon-del-03.spheriq.net) (195.46.50.99) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:18:08 +0000 Received: from lon-out-02.spheriq.net ([195.46.50.130]) by lon-del-03.spheriq.net with ESMTP id j9KAI4fQ005146 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:18:04 GMT Received: from lon-cus-02.spheriq.net (lon-cus-02.spheriq.net [195.46.50.38]) by lon-out-02.spheriq.net with ESMTP id j9KAHgDJ015028 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:17:57 GMT Received: from beta.dmz-eu.st.com (beta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.1.35]) by lon-cus-02.spheriq.net with ESMTP id j9KAHedL016588 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:17:41 GMT Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (ns2.st.com [164.129.230.9]) by beta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 76960DA45; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:17:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics, from userid 60012) id CA94647401; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:20:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 8DC5E75969; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:20:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail1.bri.st.com (mail1.bri.st.com [164.129.8.218]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id BA6A047405; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:20:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [164.129.15.13] (terrorhawk.bri.st.com [164.129.15.13]) by mail1.bri.st.com (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id CDL01882 (AUTH "andrew stubbs"); Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:17:36 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <43576E68.8080804@st.com> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:18:00 -0000 From: Andrew STUBBS User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: Problem union comparision in TUI References: <4353BA69.1030401@st.com> <43561685.3010300@st.com> <20051019200751.GA19037@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-O-Spoofed: Not Scanned X-O-General-Status: No X-O-Spam1-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Spam2-Status: Not Scanned X-O-URL-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Virus1-Status: No X-O-Virus2-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Virus3-Status: No X-O-Virus4-Status: No X-O-Virus5-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Image-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Attach-Status: Not Scanned X-SpheriQ-Ver: 2.3.0 X-SW-Source: 2005-10/txt/msg00167.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:07:51 -0400 >>From: Daniel Jacobowitz >> >>We've already established (via the bug report) that some of the time, >>the code has no idea which one is in use when comparing them. They're >>used for relative line ordering within a particular window; if it's a >>source window, the lines are sorted by line number, and if it's a >>disassembly window, they're sorted by code address. So in both cases >>it's a "line number"; that's why I favor using a single variable for >>them, although I'm open to alternative suggestions. > > > Yes, I've read the code before I replied, so I know all that already. > Having read the code, I'm not sure that addresses are used only for > disassembly windows and line numbers only for source windows. We > could have more bugs; that's why I think cleaning the code is > important. Indeed, it isn't as simple as addresses for assembly and lines for sources. That's what the original problem was - i686-pc-linux-gnu native uses one and sh-elf cross (also running on i686-pc-linux-gnu) uses the other while both are supposedly running the same simple program . > I think it shouldn't be too hard to make the change I suggested, since > most of it boils down to mechanically adding either the line or > address tag whenever the respective member of the union is assigned a > value. Yeah, it shouldn't be too hard. It just seems redundant. Andrew Stubbs