Re: [RFA] New bitflags type and eflags on i386/x86-64

Andrew Cagney
2002-08-28T16:58:21Z

> 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.

It's er, not really my patch :-) The original code is Fernando's. I'm
as they say, the messenger here.

I actually think someone should try both patches side by side and see
which one works better when used in anger. I also suspect, like with
vectors, a little register display customization will occure.

Andrew