> DW_OP_implicit_value and DW_OP_stack_value produce values (that is > R-values), not locations. I might be able to read > DW_OP_implicit_pointer as providing a location; I'm not sure.
No, they don't produce a value. The expression that precedes them produces a value, and these operators produce a location description for that value. > As I said, values and locations are muddled. If you think that a > variable which has been eliminated has a location which is described by > a DW_OP_implicit_value, then we aren't working with the same definition > of "location". Evidently not. For values that don't have a location, we have these operators that provide a location description anyway. Even though they're not real locations in the sense of existing in memory or a register, they are locations in the sense that they are described by a location description. Perhaps it would help to think of "locations" as what you think of as locations, and "location descriptions" as something a bit more general. A location description can describe a real location, or it can describe something more ethereal. > This doesn't work with any of the Implicit Location Descriptions, > because there isn't any "there" there. They don't result in locations; > they give the values which would be found if the variable did exist. So > they implicitly perform the dereference operation. Quite the opposite; they perform the inverse of a dereference operation. They provide something at the level of a location description that can be dereferenced but has no other purpose. -cary _______________________________________________ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
