On Thu, Feb 11 2016, Matthew Fortune wrote:
> No I think this is backwards it is the left half that shadows the next
> register and pieces are taken from the right. I've attempted a description
> below to see if it helps.
>
> I don't believe (in the MIPS case) we could unconditionally view the eve
On Mon, Jan 25 2016, Matthew Fortune wrote:
> My dwarf knowledge is not brilliant but I have had to recently consider
> it for MIPS floating point ABI changes aka FPXX and friends. I don't know
> exactly where this fits in to your whole description but in case it has
> a bearing on this we now hav
On Sat, Jan 16 2016, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> After analyzing some test case failures in GCC and GDB I realized that
>> there are various problems with the handling of DWARF pieces
>> (particularly from registers) in the current implementations of GCC and
>> GDB. I'm working on a fix for the GDB
n options.
Any kind of feedback is greatly appreciated!
--
Andreas
-- >8 --
___
DW_OP_PIECE VS. DW_OP_BIT_PIECE ON A REGISTER
Jeff Law writes:
> On 07/10/2013 04:51 AM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
>> OK, I may be biased, because I have *only* seen false positives with
>> this warning so far. Others may have made better experience with it.
> It's found numerous bugs across many projects. The red
Tom Tromey writes:
> gdb only enables it for the development branch, not for releases. If
> you're building from CVS you're expected to know how to either fix
> these problems or disable -Werror. Typically the fix is trivial; if
> you look through the archives you'll see fixes along these lines
Jeff Law writes:
> On 07/09/2013 07:56 AM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
>> Andrew Haley writes:
>>
>>> On 07/09/2013 12:59 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
>>>> With this situation at hand, I wonder whether it's a good idea to keep
>>>> maybe-uninitializ
Andrew Haley writes:
> On 07/09/2013 12:59 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
>> With this situation at hand, I wonder whether it's a good idea to keep
>> maybe-uninitialized included in -Wall. Projects which have been using
>> "-Wall -Werror" successfully for many ye
When building gdb with newer gcc versions I frequently stumble across
maybe-uninitialized false positives, like the ones documented in bug
57237. Various bugs address similar issues, and in bug 56526 Jakub
Jelinek wrote:
> Maybe-uninitialized warnings have tons of known false positives, while
> t
