From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31030 invoked by alias); 22 Jul 2011 19:54:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 31020 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jul 2011 19:54:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from caibbdcaaaaf.dreamhost.com (HELO homiemail-a49.g.dreamhost.com) (208.113.200.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:54:38 +0000 Received: from homiemail-a49.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a49.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0903D5E006A; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:54:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redwood.eagercon.com (c-76-102-3-160.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.102.3.160]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: eager@eagerm.com) by homiemail-a49.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E7355E005F; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:54:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E29D57D.6070009@eagerm.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:33:00 -0000 From: Michael Eager User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110621 Fedora/3.1.11-1.fc15 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Henderson CC: Jakub Jelinek , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jason Merrill , Tom Tromey , Jan Kratochvil , Cary Coutant , Mark Wielaard Subject: Re: [RFC] More compact (100x) -g3 .debug_gnu_macro (take 4) References: <20110713170053.GX2687@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <20110715154223.GM2687@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <4E206952.8000601@redhat.com> <20110715205817.GP2687@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <4E261290.6080004@redhat.com> <20110721112234.GM2687@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <4E285D8F.1000602@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4E285D8F.1000602@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg02003.txt.bz2 On 07/21/2011 10:10 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: > I've been wondering if the header shouldn't contain the opcode > definitions, similar to .debug_line, and drop your _define_opcode. > It does mean that you couldn't re-define opcodes within any one > sequence, but does that actually seem useful? 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. It seems unlikely that different targets would have different meanings for the macro opcodes. -- Michael Eager eager@eagercon.com 1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077