public inbox for gdb@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>
To: <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Cc: <yao@codesourcery.com>, <gdb@sourceware.org>,
	Mark Kettenis	<mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>, <uweigand@de.ibm.com>,
	Kevin Buettner	<kevinb@redhat.com>, <Stephane.Carrez@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Memory corruption for host double format different from target double format
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:38:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <873934l7au.fsf@schwinge.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <876281lnft.fsf@schwinge.name>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5424 bytes --]

Hi!

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:36:54 +0200, I wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:31:47 +0200, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > > Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:56:46 +0200 (CEST)
> > > From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
> > > 
> > > Yao Qi wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 10, 2012 11:32:53 AM Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > > > That is, if set_gdbarch_double_format has not been called, it will
> > > > > default to floatformats_ieee_double -- even though set_gdbarch_double_bit
> > > > > may have been called setting it unequal to the 64-bit double format.
> > > > > Hmm, and gdbarch.c:verify_gdbarch has the following comment on top of it:
> > > > > Ensure that all values in a GDBARCH are reasonable.  ;-)
> > > > 
> > > > Looks like some checking like this is missing?
> > > > 
> > > >   gdbarch->float_format->totalsize <= gdbarch->float_bit
> > > >   gdbarch->double_format->totalsize <= gdbarch->double_bit
> > > 
> > > In fact, I'd prefer to make gdbarch_double_format etc. *mandatory*
> > > and gdbarch_double_bit etc. optional, defaulting to the format size.
> > > (Currently, _bit is mandatory and _format is optional.)
> > > 
> > > This would mean that nearly all calls to set_gdbarch_double_bit
> > > could go away, with the exception of special cases like "long double"
> > > on i386 ...
> > 
> > Initializing _bit based on _format by default makes sense, but I don't
> > think this is easy to implement given the way how the gdbarch.c code
> > is generated.
> > 
> > Making _format mandatory doesn't make sense to me though.  I'd say
> > that ieee_single and ieee_double are perfectly reasonable defaults for
> > float_format and double_format.
> 
> Is there a reasonable way for at least detecting the mismatch that I
> happened to observe for SH?
> 
> 
> Other than that, OK to check in the following?  I have only tested the SH
> bits; no maintainer listed for h8300, Stephane CCed for m68hc11.

Stephane Carrez' email address <stcarrez@nerim.fr> (as listed in
gdb/MAINTAINERS) bounces saying »unknown user«, but I found another one
in the GCC context -- Stephane, is this you?  If yes, please update the
three occurences of your old email address in gdb/MAINTAINERS (and
possibly other files, too).

Kevin, I'm also adding you to the CC list, as you've been helpful with SH
issues before -- should you be listed as a maintainer for SH?

And what about the h8300 bits?

> gdb/
> 	* h8300-tdep.c (h8300_gdbarch_init): Invoke
> 	set_gdbarch_double_format and set_gdbarch_long_double_format.
> 	* m68hc11-tdep.c (m68hc11_gdbarch_init): Invoke
> 	set_gdbarch_double_format.
> 	* sh-tdep.c (sh_gdbarch_init): Likewise.
> 
> diff --git a/gdb/h8300-tdep.c b/gdb/h8300-tdep.c
> index 7fc4daa..bcb769e 100644
> --- a/gdb/h8300-tdep.c
> +++ b/gdb/h8300-tdep.c
> @@ -1351,7 +1351,9 @@ h8300_gdbarch_init (struct gdbarch_info info, struct gdbarch_list *arches)
>    set_gdbarch_long_bit (gdbarch, 4 * TARGET_CHAR_BIT);
>    set_gdbarch_long_long_bit (gdbarch, 8 * TARGET_CHAR_BIT);
>    set_gdbarch_double_bit (gdbarch, 4 * TARGET_CHAR_BIT);
> +  set_gdbarch_double_format (gdbarch, floatformats_ieee_single);
>    set_gdbarch_long_double_bit (gdbarch, 4 * TARGET_CHAR_BIT);
> +  set_gdbarch_long_double_format (gdbarch, floatformats_ieee_single);
>  
>    set_gdbarch_believe_pcc_promotion (gdbarch, 1);
>  
> diff --git a/gdb/m68hc11-tdep.c b/gdb/m68hc11-tdep.c
> index 79629ef..cd32459 100644
> --- a/gdb/m68hc11-tdep.c
> +++ b/gdb/m68hc11-tdep.c
> @@ -1498,7 +1498,16 @@ m68hc11_gdbarch_init (struct gdbarch_info info,
>    set_gdbarch_short_bit (gdbarch, 16);
>    set_gdbarch_int_bit (gdbarch, elf_flags & E_M68HC11_I32 ? 32 : 16);
>    set_gdbarch_float_bit (gdbarch, 32);
> -  set_gdbarch_double_bit (gdbarch, elf_flags & E_M68HC11_F64 ? 64 : 32);
> +  if (elf_flags & E_M68HC11_F64)
> +    {
> +      set_gdbarch_double_bit (gdbarch, 64);
> +      set_gdbarch_double_format (gdbarch, floatformats_ieee_double);
> +    }
> +  else
> +    {
> +      set_gdbarch_double_bit (gdbarch, 32);
> +      set_gdbarch_double_format (gdbarch, floatformats_ieee_single);
> +    }
>    set_gdbarch_long_double_bit (gdbarch, 64);
>    set_gdbarch_long_bit (gdbarch, 32);
>    set_gdbarch_ptr_bit (gdbarch, 16);
> diff --git a/gdb/sh-tdep.c b/gdb/sh-tdep.c
> index 1ede13a..caf940d 100644
> --- a/gdb/sh-tdep.c
> +++ b/gdb/sh-tdep.c
> @@ -2299,6 +2299,7 @@ sh_gdbarch_init (struct gdbarch_info info, struct gdbarch_list *arches)
>      case bfd_mach_sh2e:
>        /* doubles on sh2e and sh3e are actually 4 byte.  */
>        set_gdbarch_double_bit (gdbarch, 4 * TARGET_CHAR_BIT);
> +      set_gdbarch_double_format (gdbarch, floatformats_ieee_single);
>  
>        set_gdbarch_register_name (gdbarch, sh_sh2e_register_name);
>        set_gdbarch_register_type (gdbarch, sh_sh3e_register_type);
> @@ -2344,6 +2345,7 @@ sh_gdbarch_init (struct gdbarch_info info, struct gdbarch_list *arches)
>      case bfd_mach_sh2a_or_sh3e:
>        /* doubles on sh2e and sh3e are actually 4 byte.  */
>        set_gdbarch_double_bit (gdbarch, 4 * TARGET_CHAR_BIT);
> +      set_gdbarch_double_format (gdbarch, floatformats_ieee_single);
>  
>        set_gdbarch_register_name (gdbarch, sh_sh3e_register_name);
>        set_gdbarch_register_type (gdbarch, sh_sh3e_register_type);


Grüße,
 Thomas

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 489 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2012-08-30 15:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-08-09 18:19 Thomas Schwinge
2012-08-10  9:33 ` Thomas Schwinge
2012-08-10 10:37   ` Yao Qi
2012-08-10 12:57     ` Ulrich Weigand
2012-08-10 14:32       ` Mark Kettenis
2012-08-29 15:37         ` Thomas Schwinge
2012-08-30 15:38           ` Thomas Schwinge [this message]
2012-09-07  8:20             ` Thomas Schwinge

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=873934l7au.fsf@schwinge.name \
    --to=thomas@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=Stephane.Carrez@gmail.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
    --cc=kevinb@redhat.com \
    --cc=mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl \
    --cc=uweigand@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=yao@codesourcery.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).