From: "Andrew Burgess" <aburgess@broadcom.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: PING: Re: [RFC 00/12] Merge value optimized_out and unavailable
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:37:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5281F259.8090602@broadcom.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <521F82F6.70208@broadcom.com>
On 29/08/2013 6:20 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> Ping!
Ping #2!
It's been a while, but I still have interest in merging this work.
I've not checked to see if the patches still apply, if there's anyone
who's willing to review this work then let me know and I'll refresh the
patch series.
I know I'm still a fairly new / small time contributor to gdb, and this
patch set is a refactor, not a bug fix, so I might be getting ahead of
myself trying to have something like this merged :) That's OK, if you
let me know then I'll not spend any more time on this work.
Thanks,
Andrew
> On 12/08/2013 1:15 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>> This patch set merges together how gdb handles values that are
>> optimized out and values that are unavailable.
>>
>> I think that in most cases gdb should not care why the contents of
>> a value are not fetch-able, it is only when we need to display
>> something to the user that we should have to figure out was this
>> optimized-out or unavailable?
>>
>> After this patch set there will be a single unified interface to ask
>> if a value is available (either fully, partially, or for a range of
>> bit/bytes), this will answer in terms of both optimized out and
>> unavailable state.
>>
>> A second method will fetch the set of flags for the value
>> optimized/unavailable, this will be used for printing the correct string.
>>
>> For the implementation I've moved away from the code we currently have
>> for supporting partially optimized out values and consolidated on the
>> unavailable vector.
>>
>> Currently within gdb there are places where we handle optimized out and
>> unavailable differently, resulting in different style of output, and there
>> are places where we handle one of optimized out or unavailable, but not the
>> other. After this patch set it should (I hope) be much harder for either
>> of these situations to arise.
>>
>> Looking forward to your feedback.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-12 9:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-12 12:15 Andrew Burgess
2013-08-12 12:16 ` [PATCH 01/12] Introduce is_unavailable_error Andrew Burgess
2013-08-12 12:18 ` [PATCH 02/12]: Remove set_value_optimized_out Andrew Burgess
2013-08-12 12:20 ` [PATCH 03/12] Mark optimized out values as non-lazy Andrew Burgess
2013-11-26 16:38 ` Pedro Alves
2013-11-26 19:19 ` Andrew Burgess
2013-08-12 12:22 ` [PATCH 04/12] Introduce OPTIMIZED_OUT_ERROR Andrew Burgess
2013-08-12 12:24 ` [PATCH 05/12] Convert the unavailable to be bit based Andrew Burgess
2013-08-12 12:27 ` [PATCH 06/12] Delete value_bits_valid Andrew Burgess
2013-11-25 21:41 ` [PATCH] Print entirely unavailable struct/union values as a single <unavailable>. (Re: [PATCH 06/12] Delete value_bits_valid.) Pedro Alves
2013-11-26 10:13 ` Andrew Burgess
2013-11-28 20:14 ` Pedro Alves
2013-08-12 12:28 ` [PATCH 07/12] Generic print unavailable or optimized out function Andrew Burgess
2013-08-12 12:29 ` [PATCH 08/12] Replace some value_optimized_out with value_entirely_available Andrew Burgess
2013-11-27 17:52 ` [COMMITTED PATCH 0/2] "set debug frame 1" and not saved registers (was: Re: [PATCH 08/12] Replace some value_optimized_out with value_entirely_available) Pedro Alves
2013-11-27 18:14 ` [PATCH 1/2] Make "set debug frame 1" use the standard print routine for optimized out values Pedro Alves
2013-11-27 18:35 ` [PATCH 2/2] Make "set debug frame 1" output print <not saved> instead of <optimized out> Pedro Alves
2013-11-27 18:41 ` Pedro Alves
2013-11-27 18:53 ` [pushed] Fix type of not saved registers. (was: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Make "set debug frame 1" output print <not saved> instead of <optimized out>.) Pedro Alves
2013-08-12 12:30 ` [PATCH 09/12] DWARF value, mark unavailable in bits not bytes Andrew Burgess
2013-08-12 12:31 ` [PATCH 10/12] Merge optimized_out into unavailable vector Andrew Burgess
2013-08-12 12:32 ` [PATCH 11/12] Add test mechanism for value " Andrew Burgess
2013-08-12 12:33 ` [PATCH 12/12] Remove old lval check valid functions Andrew Burgess
2013-08-29 17:21 ` PING: Re: [RFC 00/12] Merge value optimized_out and unavailable Andrew Burgess
2013-11-12 9:37 ` Andrew Burgess [this message]
2013-11-29 22:31 ` Pedro Alves
2013-12-04 14:54 ` Andrew Burgess
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5281F259.8090602@broadcom.com \
--to=aburgess@broadcom.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox