From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18366 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2002 14:48:16 -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 18357 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2002 14:48:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Aug 2002 14:48:15 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17k539-0004Wf-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:48:07 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17k47x-0005eq-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:49:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:08:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michal Ludvig Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] New bitflags type and eflags on i386/x86-64 Message-ID: <20020828144901.GA21703@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michal Ludvig , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3CC42DA0.9070906@suse.cz> <3D6BF1D5.70409@ges.redhat.com> <3D6CE138.50801@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D6CE138.50801@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00936.txt.bz2 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