From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32938 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2017 09:09:41 -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 32916 invoked by uid 89); 1 Feb 2017 09:09:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*o:Research 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; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:09:39 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v11994Qw110654 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 04:09:38 -0500 Received: from e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.111]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 28ba36we6t-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 04:09:38 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:09:36 -0000 Received: from d06dlp03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.20.15) by e06smtp15.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.145) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:09:34 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by d06dlp03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ACD21B08061; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:12:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id v1199YMX4784564; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:09:34 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263264C046; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:09:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE8F4C04E; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:09:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc1027705133.ibm.com (unknown [9.152.212.222]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:09:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Andreas Arnez To: Yao Qi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: [PATCH] Big-endian targets: don't ignore offset into DW_OP_implicit_value References: <20170125221223.hsitc46wy462cb4b@localhost> Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:09:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Andreas Arnez's message of "Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:35:24 +0100") 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-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 17020109-0020-0000-0000-000002FDD4DE X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17020109-0021-0000-0000-0000403CB60C Message-Id: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-02-01_07:,, 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=8.0.1-1612050000 definitions=main-1702010091 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-02/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 27 2017, Andreas Arnez wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25 2017, Yao Qi wrote: > [...] >> All these values are from debug information rather than inferior memory, >> does it make sense to run these tests above with both big and little >> endianess? > > I've tried, but I don't know to make it work. Switching to the opposite > endianness affects more than just the byte order of variable contents; > the variables are not even found any more. Any idea? > >> Otherwise, patch is good to me. Is it OK then to push the patch? The logic for testing both little- and big-endian byte order can still be added later, right? -- Andreas