From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5787 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2013 15:23:02 -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 5708 invoked by uid 89); 30 Jul 2013 15:23:01 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RDNS_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mms1.broadcom.com) (216.31.210.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:23:01 +0000 Received: from [10.9.208.57] by mms1.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.5)); Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:18:54 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: 06151B78-6688-425E-9DE2-57CB27892261 Received: from IRVEXCHSMTP3.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.9.207.53) by IRVEXCHCAS08.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.9.208.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.438.0; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:22:43 -0700 Received: from mail-irva-13.broadcom.com (10.10.10.20) by IRVEXCHSMTP3.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.9.207.53) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.438.0; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:22:43 -0700 Received: from [10.177.72.91] (unknown [10.177.72.91]) by mail-irva-13.broadcom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65151F2D72; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:22:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51F7DA42.2000109@broadcom.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:23:00 -0000 From: "Andrew Burgess" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" cc: "Pedro Alves" Subject: Re: [PATCH] [1/2] value_fetch_lazy - ensure parent is not lazy before accessing. References: <51DEC28A.60701@broadcom.com> <51F7D171.4010909@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <51F7D171.4010909@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00771.txt.bz2 On 30/07/2013 3:45 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 07/11/2013 03:34 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > > The: > >> - if (!value_bits_valid (val, >> + if (!value_bits_valid (parent, > > change gave me pause, as it wasn't mentioned in the email. > It just looked like a mistake in your patch, as one would > only expect the new value_fetch_lazy call, and nothing else. > But, looking deeper, AFAICS, that change is correct, we were > looking at the wrong value, even if the lazy issue didn't exist. > Please correct me if I'm wrong. (I'd have preferred that bit to > have been a separate, preparatory change with its own > justification, or at least that this had been mentioned in the > email. Don't assume what's obvious to you is obvious to others.) Apologies for the poor description in the email. You did figure out what I intended. I committed the fix, with a slightly revised ChangeLog message to emphasise the two aspects of the patch: gdb/ChangeLog * value.c (value_fetch_lazy): Ensure parent value is not lazy before checking which bits of the parent, not the child, value are valid. Thanks, Andrew