From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22091 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2009 15:38:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 22082 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Sep 2009 15:38:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.45.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:38:36 +0000 Received: from spaceape9.eur.corp.google.com (spaceape9.eur.corp.google.com [172.28.16.143]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n83FcXHF000635 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:38:33 -0700 Received: from yxe36 (yxe36.prod.google.com [10.190.2.36]) by spaceape9.eur.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n83FcUkT021674 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:38:31 -0700 Received: by yxe36 with SMTP id 36so1182457yxe.11 for ; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:38:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.88.14 with SMTP id l14mr9894229ybb.346.1251992310282; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:38:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <7e6c8d660907081308r13bff580rdcf4822c77df8403@mail.gmail.com> <200907082146.40513.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA] Use data cache for stack accesses From: Doug Evans To: tromey@redhat.com Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00082.txt.bz2 On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Doug" =3D=3D Doug Evans writes: > > Doug> * dwarf2loc.c (dwarf2_evaluate_loc_desc): Mark values on stack with > Doug> set_value_stack. > > I ran across this while merging the DW_OP_*_value patch. > > Do we really know that such values always come from the stack? =A0It seems > plausible to me that this is the case in practice, but aren't compilers > free to refer to any memory at all from a DWARF expression? Blech. It's a bit confusing. I don't honestly know. I'll do some research. [We can certainly pull the patch or default stack-cache to off if you like.]