From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19254 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2012 15:43:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 19152 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Apr 2012 15:43:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:43:37 +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 q3QFhb7m016375 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:43:37 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3QFhYKN007821 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:43:35 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix DW_AT_lower_bound DWARF-4+ defaults References: <20120426150708.GA31687@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87pqau8qan.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120426153753.GA3590@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:55:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20120426153753.GA3590@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:37:53 +0200") Message-ID: <87ipgm8pnd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.95 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00923.txt.bz2 Jan> All of DWARF 2, 3 and 4 have there also the paragraph: Jan> No other default lower bound values are currently defined. Jan> Which makes the complaint IMNSHO right. Crud, I missed that somehow. I agree. >> defaults is informative, not exhaustive, and we should just pick a >> reasonable default and not complain. Jan> Some reasonable default is picked, maybe we could discuss if this fallback Jan> could be improved but I find 0 to be good enough for invalid DWARF input. I think the nicest thing would be to pick the DWARF 4 defaults, and complain for other versions. Tom