From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 91199 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2016 13:53:55 -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 91177 invoked by uid 89); 18 Apr 2016 13:53:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1332 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; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:53:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 398CDC049E1B; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:53:48 +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 u3IDrkrl000784; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 09:53:47 -0400 From: Pedro Alves Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Involve gdbarch in taking DWARF register pieces To: Andreas Arnez References: <20160415180943.4FEE857EE@oc7340732750.ibm.com> <571134CD.8080507@redhat.com> Cc: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Ulrich Weigand Message-ID: <5714E6EA.8050905@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:53:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-04/txt/msg00402.txt.bz2 On 04/18/2016 12:53 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15 2016, Pedro Alves wrote: > >> Could we have some comment somewhere on what a "part" is? >> >> This comment isn't very enlightening, IMHO: >> >> +# Locate a part of size LEN within register *REGNUM, possibly overwriting >> +# *REGNUM. Return the offset of the part within the (possibly adjusted) >> +# register. >> +m:int:register_part:int len, int *regnum:len, regnum::default_register_part::0 >> >> Reading this in isolation I have no idea what it's for. I skimmed the patch >> and didn't find any. Sorry if it's there and I missed it. > > Hm, I used the word "part" to imply a slightly more general meaning than > the DWARF term "piece". But that may actually be counterproductive... > So how about renaming the method to "register_piece" and then adjusting > the comment like this: > > Determine the placement of a DWARF piece (DW_OP_piece) of size LEN > within register *REGNUM, possibly overwriting *REGNUM. Return the > offset of the piece within the (possibly adjusted) register. This > method also applies when interpreting a register as a LEN-sized type. > > Does this help? Yes, it does. Thanks. I'd suggest even calling it "dwarf_register_piece_placement" for caller clarity? -- Pedro Alves