This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Forbid watchpoint on a constant value
- From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, tromey at redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 21:20:01 -0300
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Forbid watchpoint on a constant value
- References: <20100521070500.GA30452@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <201006050150.08687.sergiodj@redhat.com> <20100605143752.GA14558@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
On Saturday 05 June 2010 11:37:52, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> The DWARF spec http://www.dwarfstd.org/doc/DWARF4-public-review.pdf contains
> neither LOC_BLOCK nor TYPE_CODE_FUNC. But I have checked now TYPE_CODE_FUNC
> and LOC_BLOCK are IMO equivalent at least for the DWARF symbols in this case
> as being read in by dwarf2read.c.
The DWARF spec doesn't contain LOC_BLOCK nor TYPE_CODE_FUNC because they're
specific to GDB internals. Instead of it, I took a look into GDB source
and found the related DWARF elements associated to LOC_BLOCK (I already
knew the TYPE_CODE_FUNC was used for routines, so I assumed it used
the DWARF elements to describe a routine). Given that, I found that
LOC_BLOCK is used in the same situation as TYPE_CODE_FUNC, and that's why
I concluded that both are equivalent.
--
Sergio Durigan Junior
Red Hat