From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: implementing full scattered values
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:57:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41473083.70805@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <vt2k6uw6eti.fsf@zenia.home>
It's good to see that the arch changes have been taken off the table.
> Last month there was a thread on supporting DW_OP_piece:
>
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2004-08/msg00004.html
>
> Everyone agreed that having architecture-independent support for
> arbitrary DW_OP_piece location expressions would be preferable to the
> partial and architecture-dependent support, if someone could find time
> to do it soon.
>
> Let's talk about full scattered value support. What's the best
> approach? What's entailed? How do we want 'struct value' to look
> when we're done? Let's try to set some concrete goals so that if
> someone does have the cycles to work on this, they can have some idea
> what to work towards so it'll be acceptable for inclusion in the
> public sources.
Daniel at the time wrote:
> I'm dubious as to whether this step is even worthwhile. Another
> possible intermediate step is to immediately combine the pieces,
> marking the value as not_lval; read them all and piece them together in
> GDB's memory. Yes, this means that they can't be assigned to, but at
> least we'd be able to inspect them.
I think this idea needs to be explored.
Up until now we've all been assuming that we had to implement:
``struct value'' has-a array-of ``struct location''
yet what we should really be implementing is:
``struct dwarf-2-value'' is-a ``struct value''
where ``struct value'' has a small number of virtual methods that let
GDB both read and write the value's underlying bytes.
I guess this means lval_expression, with the other lval's being
deprecated. We've already kind of got this with symbols (although the
old code was never deprecated / flushed).
--
Anyway, before we even start persuing this, I think we should drain our
existing backlog of debuginfo patches, hopefully in time for 6.3.
Andrew
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-14 17:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-14 15:39 Jim Blandy
2004-09-14 17:57 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=41473083.70805@gnu.org \
--to=cagney@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox