From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19210 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2010 14:59:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 19191 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Aug 2010 14:59:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtagate1.de.ibm.com (HELO mtagate1.de.ibm.com) (195.212.17.161) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:58:57 +0000 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate1.de.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o75EwsFY028984 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:58:54 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o75Ews4o1777842 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:58:54 +0200 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id o75Ewrp3018417 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:58:53 +0200 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id o75EwqoA018388 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:58:52 +0200 Message-Id: <201008051458.o75EwqoA018388@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:58:52 +0200 Subject: Re: [rfa] frame address size incorrect if address size != ptr size To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:59:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" In-Reply-To: <20100805143039.GF4610@calimero.vinschen.de> from "Corinna Vinschen" at Aug 05, 2010 04:30:39 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00035.txt.bz2 Corinna Vinschen wrote: > I'm going to create a patch which defines and uses a new > gdbarch_dwarf2_addr_size function. It will be defined as a variable > like this in gdbarch.sh: > > v:int:dwarf2_addr_size:::sizeof (void*):0:gdbarch_ptr_bit (gdbarch) / TARGET_CHAR_BIT: Looks good, thanks. > Given that, and also given that I will remove the redundant setting of > cie->addr_size in decode_frame_entry_1, I have one question left. > > What about that comment in decode_frame_entry_1? > > If we only use either the V4 addr_size, or the gdbarch_dwarf2_addr_size > function, then the comment really doesn't make much sense anymore in that > spot. I'm wondering if it should be moved to the gdbarch.sh file. What > do you think? I agree. In fact, the comment in gdbarch.sh could even be expanded to say that gdbarch_dwarf2_addr_size needs to be defined if and only if the platform GCC back-end defines a non-default DWARF2_ADDR_SIZE (and is only necessary if Dwarf versions < 4 need to be supported). Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com