Re: [RFA]: dwarf2expr.[ch]

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>]

On 9 Jul 2002, Jim Blandy wrote:

> 
> Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
> > I also can't remember why get_subr was needed, and never implemented it.
> > Refresh my memory if you could, since you wrote the spec?
> > :)
> 
> It's for DW_OP_call*, which the evaluator here doesn't implement.
> 
> > I've only reposted it for completeness sake, i'll include it again when i 
> > revise the loc_computed patch.
> 
> Actually, let's keep this evaluator discussion separate --- we can get
> this reviewed and committed without dealing with anything else.

Well, okay, but fair warning:
either patch will take me at least a few weeks before i resubmit.
While I had time back in April, law clerking is keeping me very busy, and 
i'm wrapped up in gcc stuff on the side.
So if you have a deadline or something, ....
I dunno, i just get the feeling from the sentence that you want to get 
this out of the way sooner than that, so i figured it's only fair i make 
sure you don't have the notion that i'll get to it RSN.

It might make sense to cheat and do
value_as_long (value_binop (value_from_long (v1), value_from_long (v2), BINOP_RSH))
etc
for binops/things that need masking.or something, so we can keep the 
result as a LONGEST, but not worry about  
masking during the operations