From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22346 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2003 20:45:56 -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 22337 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2003 20:45:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.157.209.173) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2003 20:45:56 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2793A3CB0; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 15:45:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E3C3200.8070803@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 20:45:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021211 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: Variables in blocks of registers References: <200302011448.h11EmCkP001176@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <3E3BEC50.9040104@redhat.com> <20030201171001.GB29662@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00017.txt.bz2 >> dwarf2 makes it possible to scatter a value across both memory and >> registers. It's been proposed that the `struct value' be augmented with >> something like `struct location' that knows how to find any sub >> component of a value. > > > However, right now GCC doesn't generate this. Probably because it > would kill us. I'm not so sure. In the past, GCC hasn't waited for GDB so I don't think that would be the reason now. > If I have any mental energy left after location lists, > I may implement support for DW_OP_piece. Perhaphs leave that one for someone else? > Michael, I think the new multi-arch function is a good idea as long as > it is a fallback from explicit debug info support, when we have such. > I also think it needs a better name; but I'm not quite sure what. Hmm, > that could be mitigated by adequate commenting. I think it is very dangerous. It's assuming a specific algorithm in the compiler. That locks both GDB and GCC into something of a death spiral. I think its far better to try and get a proper location mechanism working. Andrew