This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 01/23] dwarf: add dwarf3 DW_OP_push_object_address opcode
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Keven Boell <keven dot boell at linux dot intel dot com>
- Cc: Keven Boell <keven dot boell at intel dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, sanimir dot agovic at intel dot com
- Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:21:45 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/23] dwarf: add dwarf3 DW_OP_push_object_address opcode
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1401861266-6240-1-git-send-email-keven dot boell at intel dot com> <1401861266-6240-2-git-send-email-keven dot boell at intel dot com> <20140610095445 dot GA5259 at adacore dot com> <53984AE9 dot 7020200 at linux dot intel dot com> <20140611130815 dot GC4709 at adacore dot com> <53995BFA dot 60109 at linux dot intel dot com> <20140612154729 dot GE4730 at adacore dot com> <53A0470E dot 9050206 at linux dot intel dot com>
> So I think having only the address here seems to be ok.
[...]
> I agree with you that having a struct value instead of an address gives
> more flexibility, but for now I think this is not required according to
> the DWARF standard. If there is a real-world use-case where a full struct
> value object is required instead of having only the address, then this
> functionality can be added after this patch series.
Thanks for taking the time to try to answer my questions. It all
seems reasonable to you, so I agree with your suggestion. I'd like
to add a function that resolves a value - that way, the work is
going to be centralized at one place. But I would think that
I can take care of this independently of your patch series, so
you do not need to worry about that for this series.
> The patch series has been outdated, due to the introduction of two new
> functions by Tom (resolve_dynamic_struct and resolve_dynamic_union).
> Shall I therefore submit version 2?
Sure. Thanks!
--
Joel