From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3236 invoked by alias); 25 May 2010 20:25:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 3200 invoked by uid 22791); 25 May 2010 20:25:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 May 2010 20:25:17 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4PKP8Ee023711 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 25 May 2010 16:25:09 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4PKOtse003797 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 25 May 2010 16:25:07 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o4PKOrlv027010; Tue, 25 May 2010 22:24:54 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o4PKOp9K027004; Tue, 25 May 2010 22:24:51 +0200 Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 20:52:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: Stan Shebs , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: DWARF expression disassembly Message-ID: <20100525202450.GA26612@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <4BF327D2.3000802@codesourcery.com> <4BF6F1F8.9090301@earthlink.net> <20100525192457.GA22117@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00579.txt.bz2 On Tue, 25 May 2010 22:17:08 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: > Jan> Asking primarily because I miss the register names decording in readelf. I meant in the current output of readelf I miss it does not decode the register names. > I don't see that in the code or the output. I see raw numbers like: > > (DW_OP_reg3; DW_OP_piece: 4; DW_OP_fbreg: 0; DW_OP_deref; DW_OP_plus_uconst: 6; DW_OP_stack_value; DW_OP_piece: 4) Yes, I agree. > I can add decoding if you want. Apparently I cannot express personal experience with the GDB output but I believe I will also miss it there. It is simpler to do in GDB. > Maybe some other details need fixing > too; if you agree with this general approach, feel free to list all the > issues you run across and I will fix them up. I cannot align myself with this separate implementation as I miss more the register names in readelf than the address decoding in GDB. I understand I am free to submit a binutils patch for it. Thanks, Jan