From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19596 invoked by alias); 4 May 2011 18:34:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 19543 invoked by uid 22791); 4 May 2011 18:34:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Wed, 04 May 2011 18:33:56 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p44IXtgS013773 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 4 May 2011 14:33:55 -0400 Received: from tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com (tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com [10.16.42.4]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p44IXsQM021956 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 May 2011 14:33:55 -0400 Received: from tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p44IXseF001385; Wed, 4 May 2011 20:33:54 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p44IXsos001383; Wed, 4 May 2011 20:33:54 +0200 Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 18:37:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Tom Tromey Cc: Richard Henderson , Jason Merrill , Cary Coutant , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Roland McGrath , Jan Kratochvil , Mark Wielaard Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Typed DWARF stack Message-ID: <20110504183353.GI17079@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20110325113237.GY18914@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00337.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:04:40PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > Should DW_OP_bra be restricted to integral types? Several other opcodes Yes. If you want to test other types, just compare them against 0 using DW_OP_ne etc. > Currently, the comparison operators are all defined as performing signed > operations. So, what should happen in this case: > > DW_OP_lit0 > DW_OP_GNU_convert > DW_OP_GNU_const_type -1 > DW_OP_gt > > That is, should this ignore the type (perhaps just using the type > width), or is this a bug in the spec? Whenever you have explicit type, use that type for comparisons, including its signedness. Jakub