From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F7E23851C37 for ; Mon, 25 May 2020 13:49:32 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 3F7E23851C37 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 04PDnL6E008887 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 25 May 2020 09:49:26 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 04PDnL6E008887 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 63C711E792; Mon, 25 May 2020 09:49:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: -Wtautological-bitwise-compare error in arm-tdep.c To: Luis Machado , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Alan Hayward References: <98a9d90b-0452-5b53-b707-9441ebcad6b7@linaro.org> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <91440d8b-14c9-611f-ebfd-4cc209c05af8@polymtl.ca> Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 09:49:20 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <98a9d90b-0452-5b53-b707-9441ebcad6b7@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Mon, 25 May 2020 13:49:22 +0000 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 13:49:33 -0000 On 2020-05-25 9:08 a.m., Luis Machado wrote: > This fixes an instruction mask typo. We should be matching only > ldrd (immediate) and not any other of its variants. As is, it never matches > anything. And moreover, within the `ldrd (immediate)` instruction, it only matches the `Offset variant` variant, right? > > With the patch, the instruction mask also allows matching of ldrd (literal), > but the check for SP discards this particular instruction pattern, as it has > a hardcoded PC register. I don't feel the most qualified to approve this patch. Alan, could you please take a look? Simon