From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26065 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2011 19:34:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 25872 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Oct 2011 19:34:42 -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; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:34:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p93JYIOY026613 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:34:18 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p93JYHot002033; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:34:18 -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 p93JYGBK018998; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:34:16 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix internal error on optimized-out values (regression by me) References: <20110926191132.GA30401@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20110927125250.GA27966@host1.jankratochvil.net> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:34:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20110927125250.GA27966@host1.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:52:50 +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/msg00041.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Jan> ((struct) ).field should be IMO still out>; just it became internal-error now. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying -- I think this should also throw. I think the rule should be that any attempt to access any "invalid" contents of a value, for purposes of computation, should throw an exception. I say "purposes of computation" because printing must explicitly be excluded here. I think this rule applies to both forms of "invalid" -- both optimized-out and unavailable. Tom