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

["Andrew Burgess" <aburgess@broadcom.com>]

On 12/08/2013 2:55 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for the reply.  This is why I posted before committing, I wasn't
sure quite what state this patch was in.  I'm more than happy to wait.

Cheers,
Andrew