On 07/22/2011 04:15 PM, Michael Eager wrote: > 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?
The part in which "not needed" appears. I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. r~
