[RFC] printing/setting flag register fields
Daniel Jacobowitz
drow@false.org
Sun Sep 20 18:00:00 GMT 2009
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 04:56:32PM -0700, Doug Evans wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Before I go too far down this path, I'm looking for early feedback.
>
> What do folks think?
Just my two cents - flag types were a workaround for GDB's lack of
good pretty-printing facilities. They should be just structs
containing bitfields, with a default pretty-printer. And/or a union
with an accessible integer value. Anywhere that our handling of such
constructs isn't good enough for eflags, it's not good enough for user
code either, and I deal with a lot of code of this nature.
As for bitfield numbering, I think we should use the corresponding
architecture's conventions; I don't know what the m68k complication
is, though.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list