Re: [RFC] More compact (100x) -g3 .debug_gnu_macro (take 4)

[Michael Eager <eager@eagerm.com>]

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?

-- 
Michael Eager	 eager@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-325-8077