This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] More compact (100x) -g3 .debug_gnu_macro (take 4)
On 07/22/2011 04:15 PM, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 07/22/2011 02:20 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 07/22/2011 02:16 PM, Michael Eager wrote:
>>> On 07/22/2011 02:08 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>>> On 07/22/2011 12:54 PM, Michael Eager wrote:
>>>>> The definition of opcodes in the line number table is different from
>>>>> opcodes in other tables, including a modified macro table. There
>>>>> are many opcodes (essentially every possible value is used) and the
>>>>> specific meaning of the opcodes may be different for different targets.
>>>>
>>>> I'm referring to the standard_opcode_lengths section of the .debug_line
>>>> header here. We're trying to do something similar for the .debug_macro
>>>> section.
>>>
>>> There doesn't seem to be any need. standard_opcode_lengths is only needed
>>> because the opcode meanings can vary for different targets.
>>
>> I beg your pardon, but no, the meanings of the *standard* opcodes
>> cannot vary. Only the special opcode meanings vary.
>>
>> See 6.2.4 #10:
>>
>> # By increasing opcode_base, and adding elements to this array,
>> # new standard opcodes can be added, while allowing consumers who
>> # do not know about these new opcodes to be able to skip them.
>
> Which part of "not needed" did you misunderstand?
The part in which "not needed" appears.
I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about anymore.
r~