This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Flags fields in register xml descriptions are suboptimal: What to do?
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>, Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:19:41 +0000
- Subject: Re: Flags fields in register xml descriptions are suboptimal: What to do?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <001a1135ed32b4c71c052ae6879a at google dot com> <8660y4pmh1 dot fsf at gmail dot com>
On 02/04/2016 02:40 PM, Yao Qi wrote:
> Doug Evans <dje@google.com> writes:
>
>> > Question: What do people think of allowing the "flags" type in register xml
>> > descriptions to support fields larger than one bit?
>> > Such fields would print as NAME=value (or some such).
> That is useful, IMO. Note that there was a patch about adding enum type
> in the target description, https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-12/msg00864.html
> but it wasn't reviewed, as far as I can tell.
>
BTW, I agree.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves