From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20107 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2002 16:58:21 -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 20099 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2002 16:58:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Aug 2002 16:58:20 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AF763CA5; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:58:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D6D012C.3060700@ges.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:03:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Michal Ludvig , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] New bitflags type and eflags on i386/x86-64 References: <3CC42DA0.9070906@suse.cz> <3D6BF1D5.70409@ges.redhat.com> <3D6CE138.50801@suse.cz> <20020828144901.GA21703@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00944.txt.bz2 > 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