From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20260 invoked by alias); 21 May 2010 21:16:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 20248 invoked by uid 22791); 21 May 2010 21:16:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 May 2010 21:16:40 +0000 Received: from int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4LLGTlH008259 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 21 May 2010 17:16:29 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4LLGSo7023586; Fri, 21 May 2010 17:16:28 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4LLGRHF028144; Fri, 21 May 2010 17:16:27 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 1830437818E; Fri, 21 May 2010 15:16:26 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Stan Shebs Cc: Stan Shebs , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: RFC: implement DW_OP_bit_piece References: <4BF327D2.3000802@codesourcery.com> <4BF6F1F8.9090301@earthlink.net> Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 21:18:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4BF6F1F8.9090301@earthlink.net> (Stan Shebs's message of "Fri, 21 May 2010 13:50:00 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00514.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs writes: Stan> Which rewrite is that? I can see switching to opcode disassembly for Stan> heinously-complicated location expressions, but multiple pieces and Stan> reg/offset seem reasonable to describe verbally - if nothing else, it Stan> conveys to the user that a local has a nontrivial liveness range and Stan> lives in different places at different times, so the user needs to be Stan> cautious when a register or stack location seems to have a wrong value Stan> in it. Yeah. What I was planning was something like: if a given piece is simple to describe in plain English, do so; else, disassemble. Tom