From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 98757 invoked by alias); 6 May 2015 10:22:08 -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 98708 invoked by uid 89); 6 May 2015 10:22:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 06 May 2015 10:22:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t46AM46B012220 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 6 May 2015 06:22:04 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t46AM2wm007332; Wed, 6 May 2015 06:22:03 -0400 Message-ID: <5549EB49.2050206@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 10:22:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Phil Muldoon Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] compile: New 'compile print' References: <20150411194322.29128.52477.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20150411194418.29128.3411.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <5540FD9E.1020005@redhat.com> <20150503140557.GB18394@host1.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20150503140557.GB18394@host1.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 On 05/03/2015 03:05 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:49:50 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 04/11/2015 08:44 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: >> >>> + case COMPILE_I_PRINT_ADDRESS_SCOPE: >>> + case COMPILE_I_PRINT_VALUE_SCOPE: >>> + fputs_unfiltered ("#include \n" >> >> OOC, why do we need the include? > > Added: > + /* is needed for a memcpy call below. */ > Thanks. >>> >>> +/* Fetch the type of COMPILE_I_EXPR_PTR_TYPE and COMPILE_I_EXPR_VAL >>> + symbols in OBJFILE so we can calculate how much memory to allocate >>> + for the out parameter. This avoids needing a malloc in the generated >>> + code. Throw an error if anything fails. >>> + Set *OUT_VALUE_TAKE_ADDRESSP depending whether inferior code should >>> + copy COMPILE_I_EXPR_VAL or its address - this depends on __auto_type >>> + array-to-pointer type conversion of COMPILE_I_EXPR_VAL, as detected >>> + by COMPILE_I_EXPR_PTR_TYPE preserving the array type. */ >> >> This comment seems a bit stale. At least, I don't see an >> OUT_VALUE_TAKE_ADDRESSP parameter. > > OK, yes, updated. > > Function returns NULL only for COMPILE_I_PRINT_ADDRESS_SCOPE when > COMPILE_I_PRINT_VALUE_SCOPE should have been used instead. What does "should have been used instead" mean? Is that a bug in the caller? > This depends on __auto_type array-to-pointer type conversion of > COMPILE_I_EXPR_VAL, as detected by COMPILE_I_EXPR_PTR_TYPE preserving > the array type. */ Thanks, Pedro Alves