[PATCH] [1/2] value_fetch_lazy - ensure parent is not lazy before accessing.
Andrew Burgess
aburgess@broadcom.com
Tue Jul 30 15:23:00 GMT 2013
On 30/07/2013 3:45 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 03:34 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>
> The:
>
>> - if (!value_bits_valid (val,
>> + if (!value_bits_valid (parent,
>
> change gave me pause, as it wasn't mentioned in the email.
> It just looked like a mistake in your patch, as one would
> only expect the new value_fetch_lazy call, and nothing else.
> But, looking deeper, AFAICS, that change is correct, we were
> looking at the wrong value, even if the lazy issue didn't exist.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong. (I'd have preferred that bit to
> have been a separate, preparatory change with its own
> justification, or at least that this had been mentioned in the
> email. Don't assume what's obvious to you is obvious to others.)
Apologies for the poor description in the email. You did figure out
what I intended.
I committed the fix, with a slightly revised ChangeLog message to
emphasise the two aspects of the patch:
gdb/ChangeLog
* value.c (value_fetch_lazy): Ensure parent value is not lazy
before checking which bits of the parent, not the child, value are
valid.
Thanks,
Andrew
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list