From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20966 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2003 04:32:02 -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 20959 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2003 04:32:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2003 04:32:02 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 199HME-00041F-00; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 23:32:14 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 199HLv-000712-00; Sat, 26 Apr 2003 00:31:55 -0400 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 03:47:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Mark Kettenis , colins@google.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: patch for printing 64-bit values in i386 registers; STABS format Message-ID: <20030426043155.GA26947@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Mark Kettenis , colins@google.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200304242231.h3OMVqM13587@dhcp357.corp.google.com> <20030425002744.GA9492@nevyn.them.org> <200304252121.h3PLLD8I000461@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <20030425213548.GA22505@nevyn.them.org> <3EA9B6AE.90001@redhat.com> <20030426015010.GA25355@nevyn.them.org> <3EA9F295.2090803@redhat.com> <20030426030534.GA26304@nevyn.them.org> <3EA9FDDF.8070205@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EA9FDDF.8070205@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00508.txt.bz2 On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 11:32:47PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >I'm afraid I don't understand, and I still don't see your reasoning > >against this approach. > > It isn't necessary, just like register convertible and register > raw/virtual size; .... that go before it, also were not necessary. And > now all these years later, GDB is still yet to expunge. > > Until someone does the right think - add support for values scattered > across registers and memory - hacks should be confined to architecture > specific code. I think the hack of introducing unnamed pseudo registers for this purpose would do a lot more harm and cause a lot more problems; I guess I just have to disagree with your reaction here. Think about the day when we have proper support for DW_OP_piece. For compatibility with current debug info we're going to have to have a way for the debug reader to ask the architecture "if I have a value of this size listed as living in this register, where (probably) is it really stored?". That is _exactly_ the same question. Asking it would move from read_var_value to stabsread/dwarf2read, but the interface would have to be just the same. That's why I see Mark's patch as a monotonic step forwards. And it fixes a real problem. We have to fix problems eventually, you know - and no one has taken the initiative to implement scattered values. I tried. It was a major pain; after a day working on it, I went back to other projects. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer