From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 42900 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2018 02:22:04 -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 42887 invoked by uid 89); 1 Aug 2018 02:22:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: sesbmg23.ericsson.net Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (HELO sesbmg23.ericsson.net) (193.180.251.37) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Aug 2018 02:22:02 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1533090119; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ZmU0BTQg+Wqt/VQQU7B8C8XQQ0XQq1dmUW5kD6ZM4II=; b=M8j5gHC91CU+Yo5xxL2Je5dnKu23hkE1I7DgFApWF1cwqsKTe0mDfg6CnxGX5Pqd 0mGIeNDWm/wTt8Sq//e7yOVvX+KVy+ef1fCb86YM9XVL2iUZyvY3Pk2O0G4bm0mB Q3ntWFkejf1QjkDJSFVNZpW3qv716SgmrotcgqIdmM4=; Received: from ESESSMB501.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.119]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 70.53.27833.749116B5; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 04:21:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSMB502.ericsson.se (153.88.183.163) by ESESSMB501.ericsson.se (153.88.183.162) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 04:21:59 +0200 Received: from NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (153.88.183.157) by ESESSMB502.ericsson.se (153.88.183.163) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 04:21:58 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=ZVXtVsdm/6LJ552cu2RgxjP3RKSCq/5KAJlz047BjLY=; b=c+YRL5iazIJegMn4WiG1c3RYs5mdcRAqCRXqcYwHXPiR/rD0OFLGy5eSBUUPr8DZHFChj5hO+1N5LfcIVsobtMUqAAPvtXRxikGex5o+qnc5oH4jlLT7jg5V51dK2DQrDbTVOvfJLFd+gosyh0BopxYAVNZuEQhI4RvnepeJtNU= Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=simon.marchi@ericsson.com; Received: from [10.0.0.110] (192.222.164.54) by BN7PR15MB2385.namprd15.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:406:8c::23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.995.19; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 02:21:55 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] Use BLOCK_ENTRY_PC in place of most uses of BLOCK_START To: Kevin Buettner , References: <20180625233239.49dc52ea@pinnacle.lan> <20180625235145.3cbf43ff@pinnacle.lan> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <8376825d-5715-2065-d3b7-134eeaf61fa7@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 02:22:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180625235145.3cbf43ff@pinnacle.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: simon.marchi@ericsson.com Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: ericsson.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-08/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2 On 2018-06-26 02:51 AM, Kevin Buettner wrote: > This change/patch substitues BLOCK_ENTRY_PC for BLOCK_START in > places where BLOCK_START is used to obtain the address at which > execution should enter the block. Since blocks can now contain > non-contiguous ranges, the BLOCK_START - which is still be the > very lowest address in the block - might not be the same as > BLOCK_ENTRY_PC. > > There is a change to infrun.c which is less obvious and less mechanical. > I'm posting it as a separate patch. Hi Kevin, I haven't "gotten" yet when we want to use BLOCK_START and when we want to use BLOCK_ENTRY_PC. I understand the difference between them, but don't quite understand how to know which is the one we want. It might become clearer as I keep reading. I trust you know what you are doing anyway, so I assume the patch is good :). Simon