From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18881 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2005 14:49:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18695 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Aug 2005 14:49:06 -0000 Received: from 203.197.88.2.ill-pune.static.vsnl.net.in (HELO marvin.codito.net) (203.197.88.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:49:06 +0000 Received: from [220.224.43.86] ([220.224.43.86]) (authenticated bits=0) by marvin.codito.net (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id j7AEkpTC025492 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:16:56 +0530 Subject: Query regarding expression evaluation. From: Ramana Radhakrishnan Reply-To: ramana.radhakrishnan@codito.com To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:49:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1123684979.29036.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Status: Clean X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00042.txt.bz2 Hi , Look at PR1978 . The discrepancy is because in valarith.c , GDB takes the operation to be unsigned depending only on the operand types. In the case described in the PR this seems alright with respect to the C standard since the result is implementation dependent. Is it GDB policy to make sure that all expression evaluation is similar to expression eval done by GCC for cases regarding implementation dependent semantics ? cheers Ramana -- Ramana Radhakrishnan GNU Tools codito ergo sum (www.codito.com)