From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15905 invoked by alias); 22 Jul 2011 21:08:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 15891 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jul 2011 21:08:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 21:08:17 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6ML8GTK022361 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:08:16 -0400 Received: from anchor.twiddle.net (vpn-227-82.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.227.82]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6ML8FPF013748; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:08:16 -0400 Message-ID: <4E29E6BF.9050202@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 21:50:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson 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: Michael Eager 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> <4E29D57D.6070009@eagerm.com> In-Reply-To: <4E29D57D.6070009@eagerm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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/msg02011.txt.bz2 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. r~