From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gateway23.websitewelcome.com (gateway23.websitewelcome.com [192.185.49.218]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF1CE385B834 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 19:04:14 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org DF1CE385B834 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tromey.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=tom@tromey.com Received: from cm12.websitewelcome.com (cm12.websitewelcome.com [100.42.49.8]) by gateway23.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD79AE9F for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:04:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from box5379.bluehost.com ([162.241.216.53]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id Izhmjrkgl1s2xIzhmjYE2E; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:04:14 -0500 X-Authority-Reason: nr=8 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tromey.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=qKVRSp4yakYk4GJisHwjfGDbsyRVDpmQtGyE0rDGwSg=; b=C2ROOXG4OP1H8XDdBpk3U28jm8 BVt7XmkdRI8Lmdipbl43R50zScd6tACqXVCFMRTBYkIGjU8CuKEvdf1cZuU7uUIvpgB+9AzvRReW2 PH5+csSsjn7S35dstmn+2nesU; Received: from 97-118-117-21.hlrn.qwest.net ([97.118.117.21]:51670 helo=murgatroyd) by box5379.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jIzhl-0005Mj-Vo; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:04:14 -0600 From: Tom Tromey To: Simon Marchi Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/20] Change die_info methods to check the attribute's form References: <20200328192208.11324-1-tom@tromey.com> <20200328192208.11324-18-tom@tromey.com> <331c3446-c38b-49f6-f185-61eabed36502@simark.ca> X-Attribution: Tom Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:04:13 -0600 In-Reply-To: <331c3446-c38b-49f6-f185-61eabed36502@simark.ca> (Simon Marchi's message of "Mon, 30 Mar 2020 12:02:50 -0400") Message-ID: <87mu7xfyvm.fsf@tromey.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box5379.bluehost.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - sourceware.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - tromey.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source-IP: 97.118.117.21 X-Source-L: No X-Exim-ID: 1jIzhl-0005Mj-Vo X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: 97-118-117-21.hlrn.qwest.net (murgatroyd) [97.118.117.21]:51670 X-Source-Auth: tom+tromey.com X-Email-Count: 2 X-Source-Cap: ZWx5bnJvYmk7ZWx5bnJvYmk7Ym94NTM3OS5ibHVlaG9zdC5jb20= X-Local-Domain: yes X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, RCVD_IN_ABUSEAT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_NEUTRAL, TXREP, URIBL_CSS, URIBL_CSS_A autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 19:04:16 -0000 >>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi writes: >> + if ((attrs[i].name == DW_AT_addr_base >> + || attrs[i].name == DW_AT_GNU_addr_base) >> + && attrs[i].form_is_unsigned ()) >> { >> /* If both exist, just use the first one. */ >> - return DW_UNSND (&attrs[i]); >> + return attrs[i].get_unsigned (); >> } >> return gdb::optional (); >> } Simon> A bit like in the previous patch, if there is a DW_AT_addr_base, but it's Simon> not of the right form, I think we should emit a warning saying that we ignore Simon> it, instead of just ignoring it silently. I tend to think gdb complaints are just time-wasters TBH. Normally no one examines them. They aren't visible to users, and if they were they wouldn't make sense or be actionable anyway. I enable complaints in my gdbinit but they've turned out just to be noise. In fact, last time I fixed a bug that was noted by a complaint, it turned out I didn't realize that gdb was complaining until well after the fact. I'm all for checking the DWARF output of compilers, but I think it's better as a separate tool; and should be done in a context where someone actually wants to fix the compiler bugs. I guess that's why I left out complaints in some spots. Tom