From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 42343 invoked by alias); 13 Mar 2017 12:18:01 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 42307 invoked by uid 89); 13 Mar 2017 12:18:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=consulted, month X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (HELO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) (148.163.156.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:17:58 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v2DCEwR7135147 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:17:58 -0400 Received: from e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.111]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 294de19tur-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:17:57 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:17:54 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.196) by e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.145) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:17:53 -0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id v2DCHrvx28442756; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:17:53 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435E15204B; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:16:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc1027705133.ibm.com (unknown [9.152.212.162]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D0095203F; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:16:29 +0000 (GMT) From: Andreas Arnez To: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR gdb/21226: Take DWARF stack value pieces from LSB end References: <20170310200108.14140D806AB@oc3748833570.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:18:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20170310200108.14140D806AB@oc3748833570.ibm.com> (Ulrich Weigand's message of "Fri, 10 Mar 2017 21:01:07 +0100 (CET)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 17031312-0020-0000-0000-0000031D496E X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17031312-0021-0000-0000-000040C0E6B0 Message-Id: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-03-13_06:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1702020001 definitions=main-1703130098 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-03/txt/msg00186.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 10 2017, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Andreas Arnez wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 10 2017, Ulrich Weigand wrote: >> >> > Andreas Arnez wrote: >> > >> > Sorry, I overlooked one other issue: >> > >> >> + /* Piece offset is from least significant bit end. */ >> >> + if (bits_big_endian) >> >> + source_offset_bits += obj_size - (p->offset + p->size); >> >> + else >> >> + source_offset_bits += p->offset; >> > >> > Should this really consult bits_big_endian, as opposed to the >> > regular byte order? Note that in the DWARF_VALUE_REGISTER case, >> > we have the same issue, and there the byte order is consulted. >> >> Using the byte order would strictly be more correct, yes. As opposed to >> register pieces, we would have to get it from a different gdbarch, >> though. I think the right one would be the objfile gdbarch of the >> underlying CU, right? > > That sounds right, and is compatible with what is done for full > DWARF_VALUE_STACK values in dwarf2_evaluate_loc_desc_full. Right -- which reminds me... A month ago I provided a patch for that as well: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-03/msg00041.html -- Andreas