On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Jakub Zawadzki
<darkjames-ws@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 05:39:54PM +0100, David Arnold wrote:
>> Is there any enthusiasm for a BASE_CUSTOM64?
>
> I'd rather want some generic BASE_CUSTOM which pass to custom functiom fvalue_t (and maybe hf_index).
It looks like all of the places that call BASE_CUSTOM functions have
the necessary variables already in scope. There are ~150 currently
registered BASE_CUSTOM functions, so I think it would just be a matter
of manually updating them all.
I'm not 100% convinced we should though - it would be more flexible,
but we'd be exposing some of the guts of the dissection backend into
'userspace' as it were. Not a particular strong objection, but
something to keep in mind.
Cheers,
Evan
P.S. We don't seem to have had any requests for generally non-integer
BASE_CUSTOM fields. I'm actually a bit surprised at this, since it
seems like it would be useful in some situations.
