From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 102647 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2016 13:27:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 102597 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jan 2016 13:27:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=clarification, heading, analyzing, DW_OP_bit_piece X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 13:27:04 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11321116419; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:27:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 81L74R9bhKdv; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:27:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5FA1162CA; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:27:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9DC224080A; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 17:26:53 +0400 (RET) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 13:27:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Andreas Arnez Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sourceware.org, Ulrich Weigand Subject: Re: [RFC] DW_OP_piece vs. DW_OP_bit_piece on a Register Message-ID: <20160116132653.GF4027@adacore.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00025.txt.bz2 > After analyzing some test case failures in GCC and GDB I realized that > there are various problems with the handling of DWARF pieces > (particularly from registers) in the current implementations of GCC and > GDB. I'm working on a fix for the GDB part, but first I'd like to check > whether I'm heading into the right direction -- or what the right > direction is supposed to be. The article below outlines these issues > and the suggested solution options. This is a very nice and detailed analysis of the current situation. Thank You! I admit that I read through the document fairly rapidly; it does seem to me, at this point, that the first step might be to get clarification from the DWARF committee? Or is input from the GCC/GDB community going to help the discussion with the DWARF committee? -- Joel