Re: Flags fields in register xml descriptions are suboptimal: What to do?

[Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>]

Doug Evans <dje@google.com> 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.

>
> ---
>
> 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.

> That'll change x86 eflags printing and maybe some won't like that.
> I could make it some kind of option, but it feels like featuritis.

I don't feel the eflags printing change matters.

-- 
Yao (齐尧)