Re: [PATCH] Consistent display of "<optimized out>"

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 08/12/2013 02:31 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> On 06/08/2013 7:39 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 08/06/2013 04:41 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>>>> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:49:03 +0100
>>>> From: "Andrew Burgess" <aburgess@broadcom.com>
>>
>>>> 3. My understanding was that values lost due to the ABI of a call site
>>>> were recorded as optimized out.  For evidence I would present
>>>> dwarf2_frame_prev_register, and how DWARF2_FRAME_REG_UNDEFINED is handled.
>>>>
>>>> For these reasons I believe my patch should still be considered, what do
>>>> you think?
>>>
>>> I think that registers are either available or unavailble.  A register
>>> being unavailble implies that a variable that is supposed to live in
>>> such a register may have been optimized out.  Whether GDB's pseudo
>>> variables that respresent registers are considered unavailable or
>>> optimized out in that case is arguable.
>>
>> I think improving consistency as in Andrew's patch is good.
> 
> Given almost a week has passed with no further feedback I plan to
> commit this patch tomorrow unless there's any further discussion to be had.

TBC, note my opinion doesn't get to overrule Mark's.  Consensus
works much better, and Mark does have deep knowledge of all
ABI/pseudo registers/etc. gdb things.
That said, Mark, if you still disagree, please counter argue,
otherwise, we'll just have to assume you do agree with the
rationales and clarifications.  In any case, Andrew, please wait
until someone gives the patch an OK.  I did not look at the patch at
all in any detail, and/or whether it actually follows the guidelines
I presented.

-- 
Pedro Alves