From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id n9KsA+9HFGDuJgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:37:51 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id F2CAC1EF80; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:37:50 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F81C1E939 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:37:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962883857820; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 17:37:49 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 962883857820 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1611941869; bh=LpeiadxmLXoxH7oFl1mhF7tDRVs8CKA+ZuDFl6pgj4A=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=ThPIi63hNvGPJgfz8X9Ur0/tvMdb9TPrD8s0knPgSgMFEFuMuYbbxUSP/PYReUw02 Hc1szycQDNO8G1N/Mywrzhu9oBxyoFE7gDrSmpTUb1qDHTPnU4VzsOdTp4QMYRkdjT 3ThrnTI5jQZJ8zWBTRAYS99PHBl4xOg9a6Zc9X48= Received: from mail.efficios.com (mail.efficios.com [167.114.26.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 783603857C77 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 17:37:46 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 783603857C77 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD2FA2F05B9; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:37:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.efficios.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail03.efficios.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id S4EayG2QU1CQ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:37:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0022F069F; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:37:45 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.efficios.com 9B0022F069F X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at efficios.com Received: from mail.efficios.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail03.efficios.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id rV0qrpSgxuRy; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:37:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 77C252F069C; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:37:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] gdb/testsuite: add .debug_loclists tests To: Zoran Zaric , Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20210120053925.142862-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <20210120053925.142862-11-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <6fe96ff5-3f11-585c-0331-62d1fe234bd2@amd.com> <56f87bf1-a43a-a710-005a-502101412d35@polymtl.ca> <491bdd1e-4ea5-eefc-0cc9-173e1fd8efc0@amd.com> Message-ID: <19df4a65-d061-a018-0363-9fb282190793@efficios.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:37:45 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-01-29 11:58 a.m., Zoran Zaric wrote: > > This all depends of ones view of what is convenient and what is not. > > From this discussion it sounds like the DIE relationship was the main > motivation for developing the DWARF assembler. I always though that it > was for general convenience of writing debug information in one test. > > While I agree that writing DIE relationships in a raw byte format is > daunting, so is writing a really complex DWARF expression. This will > get even more daunting when lane masking, address spaces and large > vector registers come into play. > > I have seen DWARF expression with over 15 operations and those are not > fun to write in a byte format. So I imagined that if the compiler supports emitting CFI that uses complex expressions, then the assembler would support a notation for it. So you wouldn't write bytes, but something like: .cfi_expr OP_CONST 1, OP_CONST 2, OP_ADD where ".cfi_expr" is a directive I made up. However, that's perhaps not true. I see that GAS has this ".cfi_escape" directive where you directly pass bytes, perhaps the compiler would use that. If so, then it indeed sounds desirable to be able to write the expressions using a higher level notation, in TCL. Simon