From: Peeter Joot <peeter.joot@lzlabs.com>
To: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: review request: implementing DW_AT_endianity
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:18:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <VI1PR0501MB2861AC93979CE9FF3FB57AF99C710@VI1PR0501MB2861.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR0501MB28618180080787DD22117A459C710@VI1PR0501MB2861.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
It looks like any talk of contribution (and perhaps review) is premature. My initial test only had a big-endian structure, and the one I wrote describing what I wanted to address doesn't work (which I noticed only after sending my review request email). The big-endian tagged structure does show up properly, but what I have done messes up the display of any little endian integers. It appears that I end up setting my new big-endian flag inappropriately:
Breakpoint 1, print_scalar_formatted (valaddr=0x1e25260 "\003", type=0x1ce2670, options=0x7ffe20ac7490, size=0, stream=0x1c95a40)
at ../../binutils-gdb/gdb/printcmd.c:355
355 struct gdbarch *gdbarch = get_type_arch (type);
(gdb) p *type->main_type
$1 = {code = TYPE_CODE_INT, flag_unsigned = 0, flag_nosign = 0, flag_stub = 0, flag_target_stub = 0, flag_static = 0,
flag_prototyped = 0, flag_incomplete = 0, flag_varargs = 0, flag_vector = 0, flag_stub_supported = 0, flag_gnu_ifunc = 0,
flag_fixed_instance = 0, flag_objfile_owned = 1, flag_endianity_big = 1, flag_endianity_little = 0, flag_declared_class = 0,
flag_flag_enum = 0, type_specific_field = TYPE_SPECIFIC_NONE, nfields = 0, name = 0x1caacbc "int", tag_name = 0x0, owner = {
objfile = 0x1c98620, gdbarch = 0x1c98620}, target_type = 0x0, flds_bnds = {fields = 0x0, bounds = 0x0}, type_specific = {
cplus_stuff = 0x0, gnat_stuff = 0x0, floatformat = 0x0, func_stuff = 0x0, self_type = 0x0}, dyn_prop_list = 0x0}
This is when I'm printing a native endian integer, so do not want to have flag_endianity_big set.
I'm guessing that main_type is not the place for this flag, but it has to be in struct type instead. Is that guess on the right track?
Peeter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-06 21:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-06 15:06 Peeter Joot
2017-10-06 21:18 ` Peeter Joot [this message]
2017-10-08 18:41 ` Simon Marchi
2017-10-09 9:11 ` Peeter Joot
2017-10-09 12:12 ` Simon Marchi
2017-10-10 18:16 ` Peeter Joot
2017-10-10 18:33 ` Simon Marchi
2017-10-10 18:38 ` Peeter Joot
2017-10-10 18:48 ` Simon Marchi
2017-10-10 19:38 ` Peeter Joot
2017-10-10 23:30 ` [PATCH] " Peeter Joot
2017-10-11 2:29 ` Peeter Joot
2017-10-12 20:23 ` Simon Marchi
2018-02-22 17:20 ` Tom Tromey
2018-02-22 17:39 ` Peeter Joot
2019-02-13 13:12 ` Tom Tromey
2019-02-13 14:11 ` Peeter Joot
2019-02-13 14:47 ` Pedro Alves
2019-02-13 16:19 ` Pedro Alves
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=VI1PR0501MB2861AC93979CE9FF3FB57AF99C710@VI1PR0501MB2861.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com \
--to=peeter.joot@lzlabs.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox