From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EFF2385737A for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 14:21:24 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 1EFF2385737A Received: from mail-wm1-f70.google.com (mail-wm1-f70.google.com [209.85.128.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-656-IDIv8FjQPvSIy4dyFOMLeg-1; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 10:21:22 -0400 X-MC-Unique: IDIv8FjQPvSIy4dyFOMLeg-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f70.google.com with SMTP id d6-20020a05600c34c600b0039296a2ac7cso2545230wmq.1 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 07:21:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent :content-language:to:cc:references:from:subject:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6EGjsuRZm0pKU2ubARqu66nCp0cJ7eWkfpzzHc8XxM8=; b=OEvxExWFketd0nW5DF7lJqxvuFSYII2wHGm5sVnSPNEjpBBaBI4e2GTDMDdeOLnFZA mrtLIZaMHA0qcl1Kaf8CNDxeL6/iNCUGm/tMWO6iYoob4WvqfnrO//rVDfPXoome0MPb IQAh6eyW0HN8V4FRW9vj1vWFPYrjHHguoa4ExEy/d1LHOo7gykjeYK8Ub3jYz3FeNSw4 2gq+h2hWOl7HrLvfVV+HeNwzENQeLZe3Td/R076SoB52aDxyknZw0s+3zHCRXyD+GxJA abae7LC2UMdA4Lwv8qz7tDN/JYnmjv3jmCXOSEmUIqkY608bdxmXCBXmYAPT9EvNAI9j CX5A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532gHJBYBVD5/jOQX4JvGPLiWCER/W11P3sUKOfNUxhm+KynoAAF 4UjzgWbhFJwYvRA7vbYWun/LL+95UK/yVYTaDqSfkdhdxZON7nt9VWAQARcVKe5w8Cu+CGv01da EmQfe8M7DGFdXWEpyMw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1584:b0:38e:c80e:b8b5 with SMTP id r4-20020a05600c158400b0038ec80eb8b5mr3399899wmf.99.1651242081089; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 07:21:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy2Lu7ISi73HMk6rkeHU+GKl5PFIUvT3Cm+M4HWUXUVhs8OjmaaqOpPgMWalAZ5Y0CDhaqHew== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1584:b0:38e:c80e:b8b5 with SMTP id r4-20020a05600c158400b0038ec80eb8b5mr3399886wmf.99.1651242080917; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 07:21:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (adsl-2-solo-173-39.claranet.co.uk. [80.168.173.39]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g21-20020a1c4e15000000b0039419a269a2sm3170711wmh.39.2022.04.29.07.21.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Apr 2022 07:21:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9f4f230e-3ded-71f2-1cab-ea5bf3170d0b@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 15:21:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0 To: "Natarajan, Kavitha" , "binutils@sourceware.org" Cc: "George, Jini Susan" References: From: Nick Clifton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Binutils support for DWARF-5 DW_OP_addrx In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-GB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: binutils@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Binutils mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 14:21:25 -0000 Hi Natarajan, > [Public] (Thanks for re-posting). > Please review. The patch introduced some new failures into the binutils testsuite. For example the new testprog.s source file fails to assemble on most architectures because it contains x86_64 instructions... > @@ -2661,9 +2665,10 @@ read_and_display_attr_value (unsigned long attribute, > > uvalue = check_uvalue (block_start, uvalue, end); > > - if (do_loc) > - data = block_start + uvalue; > - else > + data = block_start + uvalue; > + > + /* DW_OP_addrx has only the index and not address. */ > + if (!do_loc && ((unsigned)(*block_start) != DW_OP_addrx)) This looks wrong to me. Why are you testing the first word of the block for a DW_OP_addrx op ? At this point the code is just displaying the contents of the block, not interpreting them. Plus you do not check to see that there are enough bytes present in the block to make up a word. Cheers Nick