Re: [RFA] New bitflags type and eflags on i386/x86-64

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 04:42:00PM +0200, Michal Ludvig wrote:
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Attatched is an old and related patch I've dug out of an old branch of 
> >GDB that Red Hat was providing for a customer.
> 
> The mine one is more generic I think, and while it adds new TYPE_CODE it 
> can be used for other purposes as well (IIRC recently someone committed 
> a patch that depended on this type code but had to revert it).
> 
> I'm afraid people don't know how to use the complex, nested 
> TYPE_CODE_SET, while the usage of TYPE_CODE_FLAGS is pretty simple.
> If would change it so that it isn't c-specific, but rather language 
> independent, would you consider approval? Other things (eg. length of 
> the flagword) aren't IMHO that important for now.

But Andrew's patch doesn't require a new infrastructure, which is nice. 
I stand by all my previous objections to your patch.  We have a type
that does this; fix its complex, nested interface, then!  Don't add
more type codes.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer