This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc] Fix bitfield regressions on 64-bit big-endian targets
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:20:31AM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > It looks like the code you're fixing was completely bogus.
> >
> > > ! && ((LONGEST) value_address (toval) % TYPE_LENGTH (type)) == 0)
> >
> > What does that even mean? We set v->offset, both before and after the
> > patch you're replying to, but we never set value->location.address.
> > Are we only testing this in registers somehow where no address was
> > required? Or am I missing where the location was set?
>
> Well, it seems to me that value_primitive_field calls
> set_value_component_location in all cases, which copies
> the location information over to the new value ...
So it does. The representation I'm using here may not be
well-advised, in that case, but at least you've made us consistent
again.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery