From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 49891 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2016 15:19:46 -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 49870 invoked by uid 89); 4 Feb 2016 15:19:45 -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 15:19:44 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13C08C0AAB11; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:19:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u14FJf4g010867; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 10:19:42 -0500 Message-ID: <56B36C0D.8080207@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:19:00 -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/msg00114.txt.bz2 On 02/04/2016 02:40 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > Doug Evans writes: > >> > Question: What do people think of allowing the "flags" type in register xml >> > descriptions to support fields larger than one bit? >> > Such fields would print as NAME=value (or some such). > That is useful, IMO. Note that there was a patch about adding enum type > in the target description, https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-12/msg00864.html > but it wasn't reviewed, as far as I can tell. > BTW, I agree. Thanks, Pedro Alves