Should a DW_OP_implicit_value be taken from the left end?

Jan Kratochvil
Sun Jan 1 20:13:00 GMT 2017

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.


More information about the Gdb mailing list