RE: [PATCH v2 1/3] gdb: Make tagged pointer support configurable.

["Schimpe, Christina" <christina.schimpe@intel.com>]

Thank you for the review, Felix.

Also it seems that my series introduces a regression on arm detected by linaro CI:

https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-precommit/2549/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/notify/mail-body.txt

The reason is probably this patch, but I am unable to reproduce this locally and haven't been able to figure out what might have caused this ... 

> > diff --git a/gdb/aarch64-tdep.c b/gdb/aarch64-tdep.c index
> > 8d0553f3d7c..af62d3ae1ec 100644
> > --- a/gdb/aarch64-tdep.c
> > +++ b/gdb/aarch64-tdep.c
> > @@ -4086,10 +4086,7 @@ aarch64_stack_frame_destroyed_p (struct
> gdbarch
> > *gdbarch, CORE_ADDR pc)
> >    return streq (inst.opcode->name, "ret");  }
> >
> > -/* AArch64 implementation of the remove_non_address_bits gdbarch
> hook.
> > Remove
> > -   non address bits from a pointer value.  */
> > -
> > -static CORE_ADDR
> > +CORE_ADDR
> >  aarch64_remove_non_address_bits (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, CORE_ADDR
> > pointer)
> 
> Shouldn't there still be some sort of comment for this function in the c file?
> At least some "see header file"? Though it seems like no function in aarch64-
> tdep.h has any comment, and all comments are in aarch64-tdep.c. I would
> also be fine with that for consistency. Maybe Luis can comment how he
> prefers it.
> 
> But I am fine with this patch. Let's see if someone else objects this split.
> 
> Reviewed-By: Felix Willgerodt <felix.willgerodt@intel.com>
> 
> Thanks,
> Felix

Ok, let's wait for further comments here.

Christina
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Sean Fennelly, Jeffrey Schneiderman, Tiffany Doon Silva
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928