From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22677 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2009 16:33:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 22668 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jun 2009 16:33:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:33:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n5PGXjeb028622; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:33:45 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n5PGXiXK020271; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:33:45 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-13-18.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.13.18]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n5PGXhNS002830; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:33:44 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 7CA43888077; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:33:43 -0600 (MDT) To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix i386 memory-by-register access on amd64 References: <20090429102719.GA10117@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <200904291904.n3TJ4X7m000790@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090429202916.GA21831@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:33:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090429202916.GA21831@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Wed\, 29 Apr 2009 22\:29\:16 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (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: 2009-06/txt/msg00673.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Resurrecting an oldish thread. Jan> While not trying to judge what is right or wrong: Jan> I believe gdb.x86_64 debugging gdb.i386 inferior should behave exactly as Jan> gdb.i386 debugging gdb.i386 inferior. This sounds reasonable to me. If I'm debugging a 32-bit inferior, it seems weird to see a 64-bit address. Jan> As value_as_address is a long function with many `return' Jan> commands. But I do not have any strong opinion on it - would you Jan> like to fill a variable and using a single exit path which would Jan> cut the result width? This sounds ok to me. value_as_address is really long, true, but it is mostly comments. There are really only 3 returns. Tom