Re: [RFA] New bitflags type and eflags on i386/x86-64

[Michal Ludvig <mludvig at suse dot cz>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 05:15:34PM +0200, Michal Ludvig wrote:
> 
>>Hi all,
>>I've created a new typecode TYPE_CODE_FLAGS with appropriate functions 
>>and used it in builtin_type_i386_eflags type. I did this to be able to 
>>print i386's and x86-64's FLAGS register in a symbolic form, instead of 
>>printing it in a hexadecimal and decimal notation.
>>
> First of all, please include ChangeLog entries; it makes patches easier
> to digest quickly.

I did a while later (as soon as I noticed it went without ChangeLog).

> Second, I see that you assume a TYPE_CODE_FLAGS type is the size of a
> long.  I'm not fond of that. 

unpack_long() returns type LONGEST.
IMHO it is the biggest integer I can have, isn't it? I don't assume it 
is just 'long'...

> I would prefer if you instead added
> support to c-valprint.c for something like Pascal's TYPE_CODE_SET (see
> p-valprint.c) and used that.  It should be exactly what you're looking
> for.  Basically, you create an enum describing the bit position (not
> mask) for each flag, and then call create_set_type with that type as
> the domain_type.

I was about to use TYPE_CODE_SET, but I don't know how to add names to 
its elements. With FLAGS they are written during initialization. Also 
FLAGS is more simple than SET appears to be. Unfortunately I used pascal 
too long ago to remember how the set type behaves like...

Michal Ludvig
-- 
* SuSE CR, s.r.o     * mludvig@suse.cz
* +420 2 9654 5373   * http://www.suse.cz