This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFA] New bitflags type and eflags on i386/x86-64


On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 04:42:00PM +0200, Michal Ludvig wrote:

Andrew Cagney wrote:

>Attatched is an old and related patch I've dug out of an old branch of >GDB that Red Hat was providing for a customer.


The mine one is more generic I think, and while it adds new TYPE_CODE it can be used for other purposes as well (IIRC recently someone committed a patch that depended on this type code but had to revert it).

I'm afraid people don't know how to use the complex, nested TYPE_CODE_SET, while the usage of TYPE_CODE_FLAGS is pretty simple.
If would change it so that it isn't c-specific, but rather language independent, would you consider approval? Other things (eg. length of the flagword) aren't IMHO that important for now.

But Andrew's patch doesn't require a new infrastructure, which is nice. I stand by all my previous objections to your patch. We have a type
that does this; fix its complex, nested interface, then! Don't add
more type codes.
It's er, not really my patch :-) The original code is Fernando's. I'm as they say, the messenger here.

I actually think someone should try both patches side by side and see which one works better when used in anger. I also suspect, like with vectors, a little register display customization will occure.

Andrew



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]