labath added a comment.
Right, I see. The contained lists are going to make this trickier than I
expected, and might even make the code more complicated. (Though this tradeoff
will change if we ever end up with two optional regsets that need to mess with
contained lists.)
Could we at least then structure the constructor code to avoid checking for SVE
twice. Ideally, we would make this a two-step process:
1. select the "base" register list (either gpr+fpr, or gpr+fpr+sve)
2. add optional sets
Something like:
if (regsets & SVE) {
m_register_set_p = reginfos_with_sve;
// and similar for other variables
} else {
m_register_set_p = reginfos_without_sve;
}
if (regsets & Dynamic) {
m_dynamic_reg_infos.assign(m_register_set_p, m_register_set_count)
if (regsets & pauth)
m_dynamic_reg_infos.insert(end(), g_pauth_registers); // or whatever
m_register_set_p = m_dynamic_reg_infos.data();
// etc.
}
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D96458/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D96458
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
