This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Should a DW_OP_implicit_value be taken from the left end?
- From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: Andreas Arnez <arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: GDB Development <gdb at sourceware dot org>, Tom Tromey <tom at tromey dot com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 21:12:57 +0100
- Subject: Re: Should a DW_OP_implicit_value be taken from the left end?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <m3y3z95ase.fsf@oc1027705133.ibm.com> <20161221213927.GA2306@host1.jankratochvil.net> <m3d1gi5x1t.fsf@oc1027705133.ibm.com>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 19:18:22 +0100, Andreas Arnez wrote:
> Right, that's another issue. If we revert the change for
> DW_OP_implicit_value, it doesn't matter anymore,
After checking your provided example I agree my patch was wrong.
I agree that DW_OP_implicit_value should be correct after reverting my patch.
> but the same bug occurs
> with DW_OP_stack_value as well. I'll handle that separately.
Yes, DW_OP_stack_value I probably fixed for my specific testcase accidentally.
It needs some different fix than the fix by me. I am fine/prefer to even
revert that part assuming you apply some correct/new fix afterwards instead.
> Note that I don't intend to revert the whole patch, only the part
> affecting DW_OP_implicit_value (DWARF_VALUE_LITERAL).
I am fine with either way, reverting just DWARF_VALUE_LITERAL or both.
> Is there any any other information about the rationale of that change?
I do everything based on real execution results and my fix (accidentally)
fixed the entry-values testcase for me on big-endian.
Thanks,
Jan