From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24086 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2009 23:56:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 24078 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Sep 2009 23:56:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_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; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:56:05 +0000 Received: from int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.18]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n84NtoMb016582; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:55:50 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n84NtnwG021579; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:55:49 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n84NtjZG027405; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:55:48 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 17DA2378242; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:55:45 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: implement DW_OP_stack_value and DW_OP_implicit_value References: <200909050001.11926.pedro@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:56:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200909050001.11926.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Sat, 5 Sep 2009 00:01:11 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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/msg00109.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> On Friday 04 September 2009 23:33:54, Tom Tromey wrote: >> I added an 'arch' field to piece_closure because we need the objfile's >> architecture when decoding a stack value; I think we can't use the >> frame's architecture because we might not have a frame. Pedro> That sounds strange to me. When would we be reading things Pedro> off the stack and not have a frame? Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to the dwarf expression stack. The value in question comes from DW_OP_stack_value. Tom