From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17780 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2011 15:18:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 17772 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Oct 2011 15:18:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_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; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:18:36 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9DFIUKh012628 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:18:30 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9DFIUTW019891; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:18:30 -0400 Received: from barimba (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 p9DFIRx7006845; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:18:28 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix internal error on optimized-out values (regression by me) References: <20110926191132.GA30401@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20111010205407.GA5193@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201110102240.28440.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20111012201130.GA21491@host1.jankratochvil.net> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:18:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20111012201130.GA21491@host1.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:11:30 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2011-10/txt/msg00397.txt.bz2 Jan> Which patch do you refer to here? Neither of the two proposed Jan> patch of mine in this threads went it yet. Oops, sorry. >> in >> that it may break operations on an SRA'd structure where some bits are >> optimized away. I thought I added tests for this, not sure though. Jan> Missing DW_AT_data_member_location is defined as offset 0. Not Jan> sure how an optimized out field should look like. It would be an empty DW_OP_piece. Jan> Empty DWARF block will just not modify the struct base address, Jan> therefore it may mean also the offset 0 instead of optimized-out Jan> value. And popping the base address keeping the stack empty is not Jan> an empty DWARF block then. Based on this I think I probably am missing some context here. So you can just ignore me if you want :) Jan> I tried some testcase but I failed to force GCC making a field Jan> optimized out. pieces.exp tests this. See pieces_test_f6. Tom