From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27538 invoked by alias); 21 May 2010 20:50:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 27529 invoked by uid 22791); 21 May 2010 20:50:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.62) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 May 2010 20:50:14 +0000 Received: from [70.170.59.51] (helo=macbook-2.local) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1OFZAP-0002RL-QN; Fri, 21 May 2010 16:50:01 -0400 Message-ID: <4BF6F1F8.9090301@earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 21:16:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tromey@redhat.com CC: Stan Shebs , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: RFC: implement DW_OP_bit_piece References: <4BF327D2.3000802@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: ae6f8838ff913eba0cc1426638a40ef67e972de0d01da94081cfe6153cc22f7d192ac9f1df01070c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c 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/msg00513.txt.bz2 Tom Tromey wrote: > Stan> the dwarf2_tracepoint_var_ref code to compile to bytecodes, and > Stan> human-readable description in locexpr_describe_location_1. > > Stan> (Yes it's onerous, but we did want to revive tracepoints, right?) > > Tom> I will update locexpr_describe_location_1. > > I am actually just going to commit what I have, because it definitely > improves the situation, and then work on the remaining pieces as > separate patches. I did not see a clean way to make > locexpr_describe_location_1 nicer, so I am going to rewrite it as > discussed elsewhere in the thread. > Which rewrite is that? I can see switching to opcode disassembly for heinously-complicated location expressions, but multiple pieces and reg/offset seem reasonable to describe verbally - if nothing else, it conveys to the user that a local has a nontrivial liveness range and lives in different places at different times, so the user needs to be cautious when a register or stack location seems to have a wrong value in it. Stan