From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9179 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2003 19:02:36 -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 9149 invoked from network); 23 Jun 2003 19:02:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO otisco.McKusick.COM) (209.31.233.190) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Jun 2003 19:02:35 -0000 Received: (from hilfingr@localhost) by otisco.McKusick.COM (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5NJ2Us00812; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 12:02:30 -0700 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:02:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200306231902.h5NJ2Us00812@otisco.McKusick.COM> From: "Paul N. Hilfinger" To: ac131313@redhat.com CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Discrepency between gdbarch_frame_locals_address and get_frame_locals_address? Reply-to: Hilfinger@otisco.mckusick.com References: <3EF62D05.8070205@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00458.txt.bz2 Andrew, Whilst poking around on related things, I observed that, at least on Linux, the values of gdbarch_frame_locals_address and get_frame_locals_address disagree. The latter appears to be correct, since it is used in read_var_value in what I assume is the intended way (add SYMBOL_VALUE to get_frame_locals_address (frame) to get variable address). Would you like a patch, or is there a subtle point here that I am missing? Thanks. Paul