Re: [PATCH 01/23] dwarf: add dwarf3 DW_OP_push_object_address opcode

Joel Brobecker
2014-06-21T15:21:56Z

> So I think having only the address here seems to be ok.
[...]
> I agree with you that having a struct value instead of an address gives
> more flexibility, but for now I think this is not required according to
> the DWARF standard. If there is a real-world use-case where a full struct
> value object is required instead of having only the address, then this
> functionality can be added after this patch series.

Thanks for taking the time to try to answer my questions. It all
seems reasonable to you, so I agree with your suggestion. I'd like
to add a function that resolves a value - that way, the work is
going to be centralized at one place. But I would think that
I can take care of this independently of your patch series, so
you do not need to worry about that for this series.

> The patch series has been outdated, due to the introduction of two new
> functions by Tom (resolve_dynamic_struct and resolve_dynamic_union).
> Shall I therefore submit version 2?

Sure. Thanks!

--
Joel