[Dwarf-discuss] DWARF Issue 030812.2
Mon Jun 13 19:08:22 GMT 2005
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:04:06PM -0600, Todd Allen wrote:
> 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.
I confess that it does. However, offset has slightly better internal
consistency: it's a rule, defining an offset for a saved register. So
having it relative to the CFA makes good sense. But the CFA is an
awfully arbitrary thing for the value to be offset from.
> 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.
Good point. *shrug* guess we're confused either way.
More information about the Dwarf-discuss