From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22985 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2013 14:38:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 22927 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Mar 2013 14:38:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:38:44 +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 r2BEceBB006938 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:38:40 -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 r2BEccrP029131 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:38:38 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Yao Qi Cc: Hui Zhu , gdb-patches ml , Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix agent code generate bug of ref References: <513DDE2C.9080109@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:38:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <513DDE2C.9080109@codesourcery.com> (Yao Qi's message of "Mon, 11 Mar 2013 21:37:48 +0800") Message-ID: <87r4jmngr5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (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: 2013-03/txt/msg00465.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Yao" == Yao Qi writes: Yao> SIZE is checked as "size in bits". Your fix is right, but not Yao> complete. We also have to fix it when op is DW_OP_deref_size, Yao> something like the patch below. Yao> I am not familiar with this area, so I might be wrong. You are correct, but IMO it is simpler to divide each of the case constants by 8. Tom