From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31951 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2004 16:27:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31943 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2004 16:27:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 Aug 2004 16:27:35 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 4936547D91; Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 16:27:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jim Blandy Cc: Mark Kettenis , drow@false.org, cagney@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: interface to partial support for DW_OP_piece in dwarf2expr.[ch] Message-ID: <20040805162734.GG1192@gnat.com> References: <4111145F.7000504@gnu.org> <200408050952.i759qXFK010181@juw15.nfra.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00075.txt.bz2 > Again, I don't see any need for GDB to be broken until the larger > project is complete. GDB is broken for targets today that could use > this reduction method. I must say I am pretty convinced by Jim's argument. Once we have a fully functional op_piece mechanism in place, removing the temporary hack should have no effect at all. I would have been hesitant to go that route too, except that Jim said it's not much work at all. -- Joel