From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29035 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2009 21:28:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 29027 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Sep 2009 21:28:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_53,KAM_STOCKGEN X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:28:08 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F292A1071F; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 21:28:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F1810666; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 21:28:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MjgKC-0007J3-Sg; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:28:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Tom Tromey Cc: Nathan Froyd , Doug Evans , Pedro Alves , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: store.exp failure on i686-linux with newer gcc's Message-ID: <20090904212804.GA28036@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , Nathan Froyd , Doug Evans , Pedro Alves , gdb@sourceware.org References: <200909032303.56901.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090903234357.GR29075@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00089.txt.bz2 On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 03:23:14PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Nathan" == Nathan Froyd writes: > > I've been thinking about this patch more and I have one more question. > > Nathan> + struct gdbarch *arch = get_frame_arch (frame); > > Nathan> + struct frame_id frame_id = get_frame_id (frame); > Nathan> + > Nathan> + c = allocate_piece_closure (ctx->num_pieces, ctx->pieces); > Nathan> + retval = allocate_computed_value (SYMBOL_TYPE (var), > Nathan> + &pieced_value_funcs, > Nathan> + c); > Nathan> + VALUE_FRAME_ID (retval) = frame_id; > > > My understanding is that we can evaluate dwarf expressions that do not > need a frame. Will this code do the right thing in that situation? I *think* so - the frame ID would only be consulted if there were registers. I assume we can't get here when the inferior is not running, since we're passed a frame. Or is that overly optimistic? > I am not sure how to construct a situation like that. Maybe someone > else knows. I don't know how to make GCC do it, but SRA or struct-reorg on a global variable could do that. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery