[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Libunwind-devel] [PATCH] Implement DWARF DW_CFA_val_expression for
From: |
Tim Deegan |
Subject: |
Re: [Libunwind-devel] [PATCH] Implement DWARF DW_CFA_val_expression for x86_64 |
Date: |
Fri, 31 Jan 2014 12:41:53 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) |
Hi,
At 00:35 -0800 on 31 Jan (1391124901), Arun Sharma wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Tim Deegan <address@hidden> wrote:
> > static inline int
> > @@ -172,9 +183,12 @@ dwarf_put (struct dwarf_cursor *c, dwarf_loc_t loc,
> > unw_word_t val)
> > if (DWARF_IS_REG_LOC (loc))
> > return (*c->as->acc.access_reg) (c->as, DWARF_GET_LOC (loc), &val,
> > 1, c->as_arg);
> > - else
> > + if (DWARF_IS_MEM_LOC (loc))
> > return (*c->as->acc.access_mem) (c->as, DWARF_GET_LOC (loc), &val,
> > 1, c->as_arg);
> > + assert(DWARF_IS_VAL_LOC (loc));
> > + loc = DWARF_VAL_LOC(c, val);
>
> Is this code necessary?
You mean, because nothing ever calls dwarf_put() with a VAL_LOC? I
suppose not; would you be happy with an assert(!DWARF_IS_VAL_LOC (loc))
at the head of the function instead?
> > + case DWARF_WHERE_EXPR_VAL:
>
> DWARF_WHERE_VAL_EXPR reads better.
Sure; I'll rename that for a v2.
> > + addr = rs->reg[i].val;
> > + if ((ret = eval_location_expr (c, as, a, addr, c->loc + i, arg,
> > 1)) < 0)
> > return ret;
>
> This is fine. Another way to do it would be to update the
> DWARF_LOC_TYPE after the eval() instead of passing in an extra
> parameter (is_val).
I actually did it that way in my first fix but reworked it for
upstreaming because I thought this was cleaner. :) Happy to switch
back if you prefer.
Cheers,
Tim,
--
Tim Deegan <address@hidden>
I understand that authors become either WEALTHY and CELEBRATED,
or STARVE in BOXES, and I'm much disinclined to the latter.
[ Sydney Padua, "2D Goggles", 08/02/11 ]