From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17739 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2013 13:55:11 -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 17713 invoked by uid 89); 12 Aug 2013 13:55:11 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-8.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 13:55:10 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7CDt70Q011788 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:55:07 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7CDt4ft013321; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:55:06 -0400 Message-ID: <5208E938.3080305@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 13:55:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Burgess CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: [PATCH] Consistent display of "" References: <5200F55E.2050308@broadcom.com> <201308061318.r76DIMdd016369@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <5200FECF.7030304@broadcom.com> <201308061541.r76FfYQN022875@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <520142D9.4030304@redhat.com> <5208E3C8.7060107@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <5208E3C8.7060107@broadcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00316.txt.bz2 On 08/12/2013 02:31 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > On 06/08/2013 7:39 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 08/06/2013 04:41 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote: >>>> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:49:03 +0100 >>>> From: "Andrew Burgess" >> >>>> 3. My understanding was that values lost due to the ABI of a call site >>>> were recorded as optimized out. For evidence I would present >>>> dwarf2_frame_prev_register, and how DWARF2_FRAME_REG_UNDEFINED is handled. >>>> >>>> For these reasons I believe my patch should still be considered, what do >>>> you think? >>> >>> I think that registers are either available or unavailble. A register >>> being unavailble implies that a variable that is supposed to live in >>> such a register may have been optimized out. Whether GDB's pseudo >>> variables that respresent registers are considered unavailable or >>> optimized out in that case is arguable. >> >> I think improving consistency as in Andrew's patch is good. > > Given almost a week has passed with no further feedback I plan to > commit this patch tomorrow unless there's any further discussion to be had. TBC, note my opinion doesn't get to overrule Mark's. Consensus works much better, and Mark does have deep knowledge of all ABI/pseudo registers/etc. gdb things. That said, Mark, if you still disagree, please counter argue, otherwise, we'll just have to assume you do agree with the rationales and clarifications. In any case, Andrew, please wait until someone gives the patch an OK. I did not look at the patch at all in any detail, and/or whether it actually follows the guidelines I presented. -- Pedro Alves