Re: [rfc] Make DWARF-2 "address size" explicit

["Jim Blandy" <jimb@red-bean.com>]

On Jan 14, 2008 7:54 AM, Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> Apart from that, the behaviour should be identical, with one
> exception: what address size to use for CFI.  Your patch uses
>   size_of_encoded_value (DW_EH_PE_absptr)
> which basically boils down to:
>   gdbarch_ptr_bit (current_gdbarch) / TARGET_CHAR_BIT
>
> This would be an effective change in behaviour to what we have
> now, which is:
>   gdbarch_addr_bit (current_gdbarch) / TARGET_CHAR_BIT
>
> My patch uses in effect
>   gdbarch_addr_bit (get_frame_arch (frame)) / TARGET_CHAR_BIT
> which does not change behaviour.
>
> However, it might well be that the original code is simply wrong
> and we *should* be using ...ptr_bit instead of ...addr_bit.
> What do you think?

(Sorry --- I thought I had replied to this.)

I don't think any change my patch made to the value used there was
intentional.  Whatever you have determined is the best value to use
there is more likely to be right than whatever is in my patch.  I
don't think this difference is a problem.