From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 122223 invoked by alias); 1 Jan 2017 20:13:04 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 122210 invoked by uid 89); 1 Jan 2017 20:13:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1108, H*Ad:U*tom, affecting X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 01 Jan 2017 20:13:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 090BC4D697; Sun, 1 Jan 2017 20:13:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-204-24.brq.redhat.com [10.40.204.24]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v01KCwKY015251 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 1 Jan 2017 15:13:00 -0500 Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2017 20:13:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Andreas Arnez Cc: GDB Development , Tom Tromey Subject: Re: Should a DW_OP_implicit_value be taken from the left end? Message-ID: <20170101201257.GA11122@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20161221213927.GA2306@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-01/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 19:18:22 +0100, Andreas Arnez wrote: > Right, that's another issue. If we revert the change for > DW_OP_implicit_value, it doesn't matter anymore, After checking your provided example I agree my patch was wrong. I agree that DW_OP_implicit_value should be correct after reverting my patch. > but the same bug occurs > with DW_OP_stack_value as well. I'll handle that separately. Yes, DW_OP_stack_value I probably fixed for my specific testcase accidentally. It needs some different fix than the fix by me. I am fine/prefer to even revert that part assuming you apply some correct/new fix afterwards instead. > Note that I don't intend to revert the whole patch, only the part > affecting DW_OP_implicit_value (DWARF_VALUE_LITERAL). I am fine with either way, reverting just DWARF_VALUE_LITERAL or both. > Is there any any other information about the rationale of that change? I do everything based on real execution results and my fix (accidentally) fixed the entry-values testcase for me on big-endian. Thanks, Jan