This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] enhance register parsing in .cfi_* handling
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 03:35:24PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> "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...
char is fine with me. Thanks.
H.J.