* RFA: Re: Funky code in gnuv2_virtual_fn_field
[not found] ` <87u22e19kz.fsf@dynamic-addr-83-177.resnet.rochester.edu>
@ 2001-05-22 14:16 ` Jim Blandy
2001-05-23 21:24 ` Daniel Berlin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jim Blandy @ 2001-05-22 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Berlin; +Cc: gdb, gdb-patches
Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com> writes:
> Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com> writes:
>
> > I'm looking at lines 112--118 in gnu-v2-abi.c:
> >
> > if (TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (context) != type1)
> > {
> > value_ptr tmp = value_cast (context, value_addr (arg1));
> > VALUE_POINTED_TO_OFFSET (tmp) = 0;
> > arg1 = value_ind (tmp);
> > type1 = check_typedef (VALUE_TYPE (arg1));
> > }
> >
> > This looks fishy to me. If we smash the POINTED_TO_OFFSET without
> > smashing the ENCLOSING_TYPE in a corresponding manner, and then we
> > indirect through that pointer, don't we get a value whose
> > ENCLOSING_TYPE is set, but whose address points to the embedded
> > object, and not the enclosing object?
>
> Yup.
> However, although it's not documented anywhere, value_cast
> approriately smashes the enclosing type.
That's what I was afraid of. (I *hate* it when GDB does something
with a `struct value' that isn't really legal, but just happens to be
okay because we know internal details about where that `struct value'
came from...)
> IMHO, in any case, we shouldn't be needing to set the
> pointed_to_offset here. If we have to, value_cast is doing something
> wrong, or not enough of the right thing.
> This is because all we are trying to do is a simple cast, which is what
> value_cast is supposed to do for us. If we have to start mucking
> around with it's results to get a correct value, then it's not doing
> it's job right, or completely.
Great. So how about this patch?
2001-05-22 Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
* gnu-v2-abi.c (gnuv2_virtual_fn_field): There's no need to clear
VALUE_POINTED_TO_OFFSET here; if value_cast doesn't return a
useful value, then we should fix that instead.
Index: gdb/gnu-v2-abi.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/gnu-v2-abi.c,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -c -r1.2 gnu-v2-abi.c
*** gdb/gnu-v2-abi.c 2001/05/12 04:01:16 1.2
--- gdb/gnu-v2-abi.c 2001/05/22 21:14:35
***************
*** 111,117 ****
if (TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (context) != type1)
{
value_ptr tmp = value_cast (context, value_addr (arg1));
- VALUE_POINTED_TO_OFFSET (tmp) = 0;
arg1 = value_ind (tmp);
type1 = check_typedef (VALUE_TYPE (arg1));
}
--- 111,116 ----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: RFA: Re: Funky code in gnuv2_virtual_fn_field
2001-05-22 14:16 ` RFA: Re: Funky code in gnuv2_virtual_fn_field Jim Blandy
@ 2001-05-23 21:24 ` Daniel Berlin
2001-05-25 10:10 ` Jim Blandy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Berlin @ 2001-05-23 21:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jim Blandy; +Cc: Daniel Berlin, gdb, gdb-patches
Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com> writes:
> Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com> writes:
> > Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com> writes:
> >
> > > I'm looking at lines 112--118 in gnu-v2-abi.c:
> > >
> > > if (TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (context) != type1)
> > > {
> > > value_ptr tmp = value_cast (context, value_addr (arg1));
> > > VALUE_POINTED_TO_OFFSET (tmp) = 0;
> > > arg1 = value_ind (tmp);
> > > type1 = check_typedef (VALUE_TYPE (arg1));
> > > }
> > >
> > > This looks fishy to me. If we smash the POINTED_TO_OFFSET without
> > > smashing the ENCLOSING_TYPE in a corresponding manner, and then we
> > > indirect through that pointer, don't we get a value whose
> > > ENCLOSING_TYPE is set, but whose address points to the embedded
> > > object, and not the enclosing object?
> >
> > Yup.
> > However, although it's not documented anywhere, value_cast
> > approriately smashes the enclosing type.
>
> That's what I was afraid of. (I *hate* it when GDB does something
> with a `struct value' that isn't really legal, but just happens to be
> okay because we know internal details about where that `struct value'
> came from...)
This is actually why i stopped using value_ptrs when doing the
location expression evaluation. Even the value operations and the
read_var_value routine seem to "know too much" about struct value, and
don't just do what they should.
>
> > IMHO, in any case, we shouldn't be needing to set the
> > pointed_to_offset here. If we have to, value_cast is doing something
> > wrong, or not enough of the right thing.
> > This is because all we are trying to do is a simple cast, which is what
> > value_cast is supposed to do for us. If we have to start mucking
> > around with it's results to get a correct value, then it's not doing
> > it's job right, or completely.
>
> Great. So how about this patch?
>
Approved.
> 2001-05-22 Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
>
> * gnu-v2-abi.c (gnuv2_virtual_fn_field): There's no need to clear
> VALUE_POINTED_TO_OFFSET here; if value_cast doesn't return a
> useful value, then we should fix that instead.
>
> Index: gdb/gnu-v2-abi.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/gnu-v2-abi.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.2
> diff -c -r1.2 gnu-v2-abi.c
> *** gdb/gnu-v2-abi.c 2001/05/12 04:01:16 1.2
> --- gdb/gnu-v2-abi.c 2001/05/22 21:14:35
> ***************
> *** 111,117 ****
> if (TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (context) != type1)
> {
> value_ptr tmp = value_cast (context, value_addr (arg1));
> - VALUE_POINTED_TO_OFFSET (tmp) = 0;
> arg1 = value_ind (tmp);
> type1 = check_typedef (VALUE_TYPE (arg1));
> }
> --- 111,116 ----
--
""-Steven Wright
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: RFA: Re: Funky code in gnuv2_virtual_fn_field
2001-05-23 21:24 ` Daniel Berlin
@ 2001-05-25 10:10 ` Jim Blandy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jim Blandy @ 2001-05-25 10:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Berlin; +Cc: gdb, gdb-patches
Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com> writes:
> Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com> writes:
> > Great. So how about this patch?
>
> Approved.
Committed.
> > 2001-05-22 Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
> >
> > * gnu-v2-abi.c (gnuv2_virtual_fn_field): There's no need to clear
> > VALUE_POINTED_TO_OFFSET here; if value_cast doesn't return a
> > useful value, then we should fix that instead.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-05-25 10:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20010520160159.3484E5E9DB@zwingli.cygnus.com>
[not found] ` <87u22e19kz.fsf@dynamic-addr-83-177.resnet.rochester.edu>
2001-05-22 14:16 ` RFA: Re: Funky code in gnuv2_virtual_fn_field Jim Blandy
2001-05-23 21:24 ` Daniel Berlin
2001-05-25 10:10 ` Jim Blandy
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox