From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16990 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2009 16:05:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 16782 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Sep 2009 16:05:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_53,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:04:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n84G4gxL003996; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:04:42 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n84G4fRZ028015; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:04:41 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n84G4ewb012020; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:04:41 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 15C32378242; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:04:40 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Nathan Froyd Cc: Doug Evans , Pedro Alves , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: store.exp failure on i686-linux with newer gcc's References: <200909032303.56901.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090903234357.GR29075@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:05:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090903234357.GR29075@codesourcery.com> (Nathan Froyd's message of "Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:43:57 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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/msg00075.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Nathan" == Nathan Froyd writes: Nathan> If it does, maybe somebody will be so kind as to approve it in this Nathan> thread rather than waiting for a resubmit. :) Nice patch. This conflicts with the DW_OP_*_value patch, but I looked and for the most part it does not seem to be too hard to reconcile them. Nathan> +static void Nathan> +write_pieced_value (struct value *to, struct value *from) Nathan> +{ [...] Nathan> + struct frame_info *frame = frame_find_by_id (VALUE_FRAME_ID (to)); Nathan> + Nathan> + if (frame == NULL) Nathan> + { Nathan> + set_value_optimized_out (to, 1); What impact does this have on the error messages the user sees? I didn't try to trace through the code; will setting a variable in this scenario give an error? (Or silently do nothing?) Second, this seems like a change in behavior for the value history. Suppose the user does "print local", which uses this machinery. Then the inferior exits. Then the user does "print $1" or whatever... this ought to print the same value, but now I think the user will get an error. So, perhaps it is better to continue to copy in the bits eagerly instead of postponing them to read_pieced_value. Nathan> + struct piece_closure *c = (struct piece_closure *) value_computed_closure (v); I wish the closure were just passed as an argument to all these callbacks, but that is just a drive-by complaint, not your problem. Tom