From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22721 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2003 10:35:44 -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 22709 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2003 10:35:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web60110.mail.yahoo.com) (216.109.118.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Oct 2003 10:35:43 -0000 Message-ID: <20031001103543.22518.qmail@web60110.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [203.199.140.162] by web60110.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 03:35:43 PDT Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 10:35:00 -0000 From: ankit thukral Subject: about class LOC_COMPUTED_ARG To: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00016.txt.bz2 hi all, this is about the address class of the symbols (arguments or local symbols) which is LOC_COMPUTED.for this class , the value of the symbol is calculated by calling some function called locexpr_read_variable() which is stored in as a function pointer as against the class LOC_BASEREG in which the location of the symbols is calculated using the "base register + offset" approach. while debugging a process,i noticed that the argument of some function had the address class LOC_BASEREG_ARG while the same had LOC_COMPUTED_ARG in an older version and newer version of GDB respectively.can anyone tell me the reason for this shift i noticed? is the class LOC_BASEREG_ARG becoming deprecated or is it sort of buggy? thanks in advance, ankit. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com