On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 04:33:30PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> DW_OP_GNU_variable_value you mean. That's true. But I was talking about
Sure.
> omitting DW_AT_upper_bound which would correspond to int[] vs.
> a empty location list DW_AT_upper_bound which would correspond to
> int[<something>].
I think that is fine to differentiate.
> Not sure if that is how it behaves (well, gdb still doesn't support
> DW_OP_GNU_variable_value). Related is probably that I wanted to have
> debug info of VLAs in the abstract instance so we'd have a
> DW_OP_GNU_variable_value
> of a DIE in the abstract instance (with no location) and the concrete instance
> DIE of the refered to DIE would only be related to it via its
> DW_AT_abstract_origin
> attribute. Ideally that would just work but given lacking gdb support
> I couldn't
> figure that out and thus we re-emit the whole type in the concrete
> instances...
The intent was that the debugger would do similar thing as if the user at that
point asked for the value of that (integral) variable, whatever it would
print would be just pushed to the DWARF stack.
Not sure how far are the GDB folks with the DW_OP_GNU_variable_value
support.
Jakub
