[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