From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 38046 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2016 14:41:10 -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 38024 invoked by uid 89); 4 Feb 2016 14:41:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mail-pf0-f171.google.com Received: from mail-pf0-f171.google.com (HELO mail-pf0-f171.google.com) (209.85.192.171) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 14:41:07 +0000 Received: by mail-pf0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 65so47083387pfd.2 for ; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 06:41:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7PYWgI0Tb6+UPQB9KUpaD7e3JvR5XK+7Mh2es/XGdT8=; b=HVIRJ+UHdbc01AbF4hX4AE3Z3Ht3AHZL1ynCiMOdw/DWATNXT5K9E8lqqipmtHIEsr DB+82jD8lrmfjUk21Vu/mGg5SbB7oJ5gkcRbP+lZnkUWjYiuFnNoJJ1OyxEDZ7N1XHoa P0K0eULXeudOsUlDIwhEgBhXc6ZB9vrlHaHkdPU3iaLDYu5l9c5QhiwnFCa8UqHZwjbc T50B6LWXW7nikFF7Yk+xABX+X/RKuOKz33Zmzst6n2sdKpAsJDY5OWalxJhz85vV889r g1grd/miLY2Q99qt25XdG6ZKYJ6dzRS0vE7n18wUjXOxMR1J6RdX/aknl+a846DRG5cv dpwA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOT0Gjr7rGpvmUdADV2M0VsUd7/JzDD+z1UDGjaOtSFzR/UL97whGfV0tcbKxdP2UA== X-Received: by 10.66.237.66 with SMTP id va2mr11418179pac.87.1454596865669; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 06:41:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from E107787-LIN (gcc1-power7.osuosl.org. [140.211.15.137]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l62sm17799798pfj.7.2016.02.04.06.41.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Feb 2016 06:41:04 -0800 (PST) From: Yao Qi To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Flags fields in register xml descriptions are suboptimal: What to do? References: <001a1135ed32b4c71c052ae6879a@google.com> Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 14:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <001a1135ed32b4c71c052ae6879a@google.com> (Doug Evans's message of "Thu, 04 Feb 2016 00:08:11 +0000") Message-ID: <8660y4pmh1.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00110.txt.bz2 Doug Evans writes: > Question: What do people think of allowing the "flags" type in register x= ml > descriptions to support fields larger than one bit? > Such fields would print as NAME=3Dvalue (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/ms= g00864.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=3D1 ... ] > > 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. --=20 Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7)