From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20055 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2016 15:11:59 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 20041 invoked by uid 89); 4 Feb 2016 15:11:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:11:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF9978E241; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:11:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u14FBt60016450; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 10:11:55 -0500 Message-ID: <56B36A3A.5060109@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:11:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi , Doug Evans CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Flags fields in register xml descriptions are suboptimal: What to do? References: <001a1135ed32b4c71c052ae6879a@google.com> <8660y4pmh1.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8660y4pmh1.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00113.txt.bz2 On 02/04/2016 02:40 PM, Yao Qi wrote: >> >> Also, I'd like to print flags even if they're zero. E.g., >> >> (gdb) i r cpsr >> cpsr 0xa0000020 123456 [ Z !C N !V EL=1 ... ] >> >> or some such. >> IOW, instead of not printing fields that are zero/false/off, >> print them as "!FIELD". > > I am not sure of this one. Me neither. I don't think I'd like it, personally. I find it easier to spot the rogue TF or some such if only the set bits are displayed. And I imagine that with a 64-bit flags register that would result in a very long string hard to grok. Thanks, Pedro Alves