Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] dwarf2expr.c: Prepare for eventual DW_OP_piece support
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:53:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030424034624.GA7249@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1030424011351.ZM18193@localhost.localdomain>

On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 06:13:52PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> On Apr 23,  6:05pm, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> 
> > ... prepares execute_stack_op() for eventual DW_OP_piece
> > support.
> 
> I have a patch which adds _limited_ DW_OP_piece support.  It finds the
> various "pieces" (all of which must be registers) in the location
> expression and then calls an architecture specific method to determine
> whether, given a single register number, gdb can reliably fetch the
> necessary pieces.  The architecture dependent method simply checks to
> make sure that the register numbers (the pieces) are in the correct
> order and it returns the register number that must be used in order to
> properly fetch the pieces (or -1 if it can't be done).
> 
> This support doesn't handle the interesting case of an object being
> split between a register and memory or even of the slightly less
> interesting case of non-contiguous registers, but it will be adequate
> for most DW_OP_piece expressions that gcc will emit in the near
> future.  Anyway... given the limitations outlined above, is there
> interest in having me submit this patch? 

Ah, sounds like our friend the e500.  I think that you should submit
the patch, personally.

Note that we can make GCC emit more DW_OP_piece information in,
probably, a heartbeat or so.  Once GDB's ready for it.  The movement of
ctx->in_reg out of the loop is appropriate only for the limited
DW_OP_piece support you describe above; but it's in the loop for
exactly the reason of values split between registers and memory.  In
order to support this locations need to become more complete objects. 
I have a plan of attack, but no time.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


  reply	other threads:[~2003-04-24  3:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-04-24  3:46 Kevin Buettner
2003-04-24  5:54 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-04-24 15:53   ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2003-05-07 22:41 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-05-07 23:01   ` Elena Zannoni
     [not found]     ` <ezannoni@redhat.com>
2003-05-14 22:48       ` Kevin Buettner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20030424034624.GA7249@nevyn.them.org \
    --to=drow@mvista.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    --cc=kevinb@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox