Re: [PATCH 1/3] New function value_has_address

[Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 07:16:15PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > I think that it's good that the names match.  If one is renamed,
> > so should the other, IMO.  Maybe call the function
> > value_has_address_location?  I think it'd be good if the
> > function's intro comment made this link more explicit.
> > Actually, I see now that patch #3 tweaks the comment.
> 
> I think part of the confusion is that the comment above is simply
> no longer true; for lval_register values, address is *not* (any longer)
> used to hold any byte offset into a register structure, as far as I
> can see.  Instead, for lval_register values, the register that holds
> the value is identifed solely via the VALUE_REGNUM/VALUE_NEXT_FRAME_ID
> fields, and the address field is ignored.

That is what I am saying in the last paragraph of cover letter.

> 
> I think we should reword the comments to reflect the fact that
> "address" is only used for lval_address.  On the other hand,
> the regnum/frame_id fields should move into the union and only
> be used for lval_register values ...
> 

That is what I am trying to do in next step.  Let me finish it and
include it in this series as well.

-- 
Yao (齐尧)