From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19894 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2003 01:13:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19887 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2003 01:13:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2003 01:13:58 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3O1DwD28761 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:13:58 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3O1Dwq25066 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:13:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-7.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.7]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3O1Dvk09790 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:13:57 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3O1DqQ18194 for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 18:13:52 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 05:54:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1030424011351.ZM18193@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Kevin Buettner "[RFA] dwarf2expr.c: Prepare for eventual DW_OP_piece support" (Apr 23, 6:05pm) References: <1030424010535.ZM18157@localhost.localdomain> To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] dwarf2expr.c: Prepare for eventual DW_OP_piece support MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00461.txt.bz2 On Apr 23, 6:05pm, Kevin Buettner wrote: > ... prepares execute_stack_op() for eventual DW_OP_piece > support. I have a patch which adds _limited_ DW_OP_piece support. It finds the various "pieces" (all of which must be registers) in the location expression and then calls an architecture specific method to determine whether, given a single register number, gdb can reliably fetch the necessary pieces. The architecture dependent method simply checks to make sure that the register numbers (the pieces) are in the correct order and it returns the register number that must be used in order to properly fetch the pieces (or -1 if it can't be done). This support doesn't handle the interesting case of an object being split between a register and memory or even of the slightly less interesting case of non-contiguous registers, but it will be adequate for most DW_OP_piece expressions that gcc will emit in the near future. Anyway... given the limitations outlined above, is there interest in having me submit this patch? Kevin