From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17787 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2002 15:45:26 -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 17754 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2002 15:45:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2002 15:45:21 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16zg0J-0001oM-00 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:45:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 08:45:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] New bitflags type and eflags on i386/x86-64 Message-ID: <20020422114523.A6524@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3CC42916.9080001@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CC42916.9080001@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00796.txt.bz2 On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Michal Ludvig wrote: > Hi all, > I've created a new typecode TYPE_CODE_FLAGS with appropriate functions > and used it in builtin_type_i386_eflags type. I did this to be able to > print i386's and x86-64's FLAGS register in a symbolic form, instead of > printing it in a hexadecimal and decimal notation. > > Now it looks like this: > (gdb) info registers eflags > eflags 0x747 [ DF IF TF ZF PF CF ] > > I've chosen quite a generic way for implementation, so that the others > could use this for their types as well. For now I'm using this type > only on x86-64, but using it on i386 should be possible without > modifications. (BTW Should I do it or the maintainer will?) > > Any comments? Can I commit? First of all, please include ChangeLog entries; it makes patches easier to digest quickly. Second, I see that you assume a TYPE_CODE_FLAGS type is the size of a long. I'm not fond of that. I would prefer if you instead added support to c-valprint.c for something like Pascal's TYPE_CODE_SET (see p-valprint.c) and used that. It should be exactly what you're looking for. Basically, you create an enum describing the bit position (not mask) for each flag, and then call create_set_type with that type as the domain_type. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer