[Dwarf-discuss] DWARF Issue 030812.2

[Todd Allen]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:47:32PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Re: <a href=http://dwarf.freestandards.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=030812.2>DWARF Issue 030812.2</a>
> 
> I think that val_cfa_offset would be clearer than val_offset; every time
> I see val_offset, I'm going to ask myself, "offset from what?".
> 

I used val_offset because it's an alternative to offset, which already
is defined.  That is,

   offset:     CFA+offset is the location where the value is stored
   val_offset: CFA+offset is the value itself

So, if val_offset is going to make you ask that, then doesn't the existing
offset make you ask the same question?  I admit these names get confusing.
It seems like almost all of the instructions contain one of the terms cfa or
offset, or both.  (Every time I come across DW_CFA_def_cfa_offset, I think my
head is going to explode.  :-) ).  But I doubt we really want to go back and
change the name of the existing offset rule or its instructions.  And I think
the symmetry of names is useful in order to keep the confusion from getting
completely out of control.

I know that adding an extra cfa into the instruction names probably would
confuse me into thinking it was one of the DW_CFA_def_cfa_* instructions at
some point in the future, after I've had a chance to forget all this again.

-- 
Todd Allen
Concurrent Computer Corporation