Re: supporting DW_OP_{implicit,stack}_value

[Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com>]

On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 15:42 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Also it seems to me that this
> could be quite huge.  (If it's not a block bigger than a word, why wouldn't
> the compiler just use DW_OP_const* DW_OP_stack_value instead?)

You are right, it seems gcc emits DW_OP_stack_value for smaller values
anyway:
           0x00000111..0x0000012a [   0] lit6
                                  [   1] stack_value
                                  [   2] piece 4

But for larger values it does:

           0x000000e1..0x000000fa [   0] implicit_value 4 (ef be ad de )

> Perhaps it is better just to print "n byte block" as for DW_FORM_block*.

It is fine either way for me. Originally I printed the value because I
wanted to double check it corresponded to what the compiler emitted, but
just the length would really be enough (except if we really distrust the
compiler) especially since the value is just a blob anyway.

Cheers,

Mark