From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 33871 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2016 17:46:58 -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 33379 invoked by uid 89); 22 Nov 2016 17:46:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_STOCKGEN,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=assignments X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 17:46:47 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.90.203]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1c9F9a-0005KM-11 from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com ; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 09:46:46 -0800 Received: from [172.30.6.101] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 09:46:43 -0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Set VALUE_VAL before set_value_address References: <1479829721-22162-1-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> <1479829721-22162-3-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> To: Yao Qi , Reply-To: Luis Machado From: Luis Machado Message-ID: <5ff65b43-f885-eeb3-68f4-dbfe223fd0a9@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 17:46:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1479829721-22162-3-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-orw-mbx-02.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.202) To svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.203) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00645.txt.bz2 On 11/22/2016 09:48 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > Since we have a check on VALUE_VAL in set_value_address, we need to > set VALUE_VAL properly before set_value_address. > > gdb: > > 2016-11-21 Yao Qi > > * ada-lang.c (ensure_lval): Call set_value_address after setting > VALUE_LVAL. > * elfread.c (elf_gnu_ifunc_resolve_addr): Set VALUE_LVAL to > lval_memory. > (elf_gnu_ifunc_resolver_return_stop): Likewise. > * value.c (value_fn_field): Likewise. > (value_from_contents_and_address_unresolved): Likewise. > (value_from_contents_and_address): Likewise. > --- > gdb/ada-lang.c | 2 +- > gdb/elfread.c | 2 ++ > gdb/value.c | 5 +++-- > 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gdb/ada-lang.c b/gdb/ada-lang.c > index 0647a9b..33591af 100644 > --- a/gdb/ada-lang.c > +++ b/gdb/ada-lang.c > @@ -4473,8 +4473,8 @@ ensure_lval (struct value *val) > const CORE_ADDR addr = > value_as_long (value_allocate_space_in_inferior (len)); > > - set_value_address (val, addr); > VALUE_LVAL (val) = lval_memory; > + set_value_address (val, addr); > write_memory (addr, value_contents (val), len); > } > > diff --git a/gdb/elfread.c b/gdb/elfread.c > index e49af6d..c6d0fdb 100644 > --- a/gdb/elfread.c > +++ b/gdb/elfread.c > @@ -879,6 +879,7 @@ elf_gnu_ifunc_resolve_addr (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, CORE_ADDR pc) > name_at_pc = NULL; > > function = allocate_value (func_func_type); > + VALUE_LVAL (function) = lval_memory; > set_value_address (function, pc); > > /* STT_GNU_IFUNC resolver functions usually receive the HWCAP vector as > @@ -992,6 +993,7 @@ elf_gnu_ifunc_resolver_return_stop (struct breakpoint *b) > gdb_assert (b->loc->next == NULL); > > func_func = allocate_value (func_func_type); > + VALUE_LVAL (func_func) = lval_memory; > set_value_address (func_func, b->loc->related_address); > > value = allocate_value (value_type); > diff --git a/gdb/value.c b/gdb/value.c > index a8ab5db..a093a9a 100644 > --- a/gdb/value.c > +++ b/gdb/value.c > @@ -3280,6 +3280,7 @@ value_fn_field (struct value **arg1p, struct fn_field *f, > } > > v = allocate_value (ftype); > + VALUE_LVAL (v) = lval_memory; > if (sym) > { > set_value_address (v, BLOCK_START (SYMBOL_BLOCK_VALUE (sym))); > @@ -3666,8 +3667,8 @@ value_from_contents_and_address_unresolved (struct type *type, > v = allocate_value_lazy (type); > else > v = value_from_contents (type, valaddr); > - set_value_address (v, address); > VALUE_LVAL (v) = lval_memory; > + set_value_address (v, address); > return v; > } > > @@ -3692,8 +3693,8 @@ value_from_contents_and_address (struct type *type, > if (TYPE_DATA_LOCATION (resolved_type_no_typedef) != NULL > && TYPE_DATA_LOCATION_KIND (resolved_type_no_typedef) == PROP_CONST) > address = TYPE_DATA_LOCATION_ADDR (resolved_type_no_typedef); > - set_value_address (v, address); > VALUE_LVAL (v) = lval_memory; > + set_value_address (v, address); > return v; > } > > It sounds like if we go the route of having value_has_address only return true for lval_memory, we could get rid of these explicit assignments of VALUE_LVAL and make set_value_address set VALUE->location.address. I agree with your initial assessment that only lval_memory should have an address. But maybe GDB is using lval_register with other meanings?