This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi! On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:06:02 +0100, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:57:11 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > In my patch I had explicitly taken care to replace .long with .4byte only > > in .debug_* sections (and only in files that are not x86-specific, as it > > doesn't matter for those). You're now proposing such changes, too: > > I checked specifically the "v" case where .debug_info already expects it takes > _4_ bytes: > .byte 0x4 /* DW_AT_byte_size */ > > It is true I did not check other cases but: > > > > I just wanted to check whether we can be sure that .4byte always conveys > > the same meaning as .long did in such cases? > > as these testfiles were created on x86* .long is compiled there as .4byte. > This means that any such occurence of .long can be replaced by .4byte. > > > > Can there be other semantic differences between the two? > > It is a good question and I am not aware of any such differences. Hmm, I just had a quick look, and found that, for example, tc-arm.c has this: #ifdef OBJ_ELF { "word", s_arm_elf_cons, 4 }, { "long", s_arm_elf_cons, 4 }, ... and obj-elf.c: {"4byte", cons, 4}, Compared to cons, s_arm_elf_cons does quite a lot of things, for example handle mapping symbols (which cons doesn't do, I think?). GrÃÃe, Thomas
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |