This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] New bitflags type and eflags on i386/x86-64
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Michal Ludvig <mludvig at suse dot cz>
- Cc: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at ges dot redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:49:01 -0400
- Subject: Re: [RFA] New bitflags type and eflags on i386/x86-64
- References: <3CC42DA0.9070906@suse.cz> <3D6BF1D5.70409@ges.redhat.com> <3D6CE138.50801@suse.cz>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 04:42:00PM +0200, Michal Ludvig wrote:
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Attatched is an old and related patch I've dug out of an old branch of
> >GDB that Red Hat was providing for a customer.
>
> The mine one is more generic I think, and while it adds new TYPE_CODE it
> can be used for other purposes as well (IIRC recently someone committed
> a patch that depended on this type code but had to revert it).
>
> I'm afraid people don't know how to use the complex, nested
> TYPE_CODE_SET, while the usage of TYPE_CODE_FLAGS is pretty simple.
> If would change it so that it isn't c-specific, but rather language
> independent, would you consider approval? Other things (eg. length of
> the flagword) aren't IMHO that important for now.
But Andrew's patch doesn't require a new infrastructure, which is nice.
I stand by all my previous objections to your patch. We have a type
that does this; fix its complex, nested interface, then! Don't add
more type codes.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer