This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] enhance register parsing in .cfi_* handling
- From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich at novell dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:35:24 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] enhance register parsing in .cfi_* handling
- References: <47B036C6.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <20080211152601.GA19465@lucon.org>
>>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> 11.02.08 16:26 >>>
>On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:51:34AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- 2008-02-11/opcodes/i386-opc.h 2008-02-11 08:33:30.000000000 +0100
>> +++ 2008-02-11/opcodes/i386-opc.h 2008-02-11 10:27:10.000000000 +0100
>> @@ -489,15 +489,16 @@ typedef struct
>> {
>> char *reg_name;
>> i386_operand_type reg_type;
>> - unsigned int reg_flags;
>> + unsigned char reg_flags;
>> #define RegRex 0x1 /* Extended register. */
>> #define RegRex64 0x2 /* Extended 8 bit register. */
>> - unsigned int reg_num;
>> -#define RegRip ((unsigned int ) ~0)
>> + unsigned char reg_num;
>> +#define RegRip ((unsigned char ) ~0)
>> #define RegEip (RegRip - 1)
>> /* EIZ and RIZ are fake index registers. */
>> #define RegEiz (RegEip - 1)
>> #define RegRiz (RegEiz - 1)
>> + signed char dw2_regnum[2];
>> }
>> reg_entry;
>>
>
>Do we really need to save a few bytes here? Can we use int instead
>char?
Of course all these fields could be left as (or made) int-s, but I really
think that for read-only tables it is more efficient to keep them as
small as possible (in particular, with the change as I did it the structure
size doesn't change, so the only growth comes from that added table
elements). But of course, if you insist...
Jan