From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21240 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2003 18:35:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21232 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2003 18:35:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 12 Mar 2003 18:35:31 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18tCxo-0005TM-00; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:36:36 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18tB4P-0006z5-00; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:35:17 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , stcarrez@nerim.fr, brobecker@gnat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, kettenis@chello.nl Subject: Re: 8-byte register values on a 32-bit machine Message-ID: <20030312183517.GA26765@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Michael Elizabeth Chastain , stcarrez@nerim.fr, brobecker@gnat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, kettenis@chello.nl References: <200303021659.h22Gxc908446@duracef.shout.net> <3E6F53B3.6010803@redhat.com> <20030312155116.GA3669@nevyn.them.org> <3E6F7C6F.2030805@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E6F7C6F.2030805@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00189.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:29:03PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >The new code fixes some reported wrong-value-reported bugs in other > >debugging > >situations; one of them was reported just recently. So I don't think > >'equalled the functionality of the old mechanism' is really quite fair. > > True. However, breaking `long long' is a serious regression. If a > developer can't trust that, what can they trust? Historically it hasn't been all that trustable anyway. I don't have a testcase handy but CORE_ADDRs in GDB backtraces tend to be wrong, even when they're properly saved to the stack. Et cetera. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer