>> This looks incorrect to me, that is a workaround for a real GCC bug.
Mark> I was discussing this after the BoF with Tom Tromey (CCed) and he also Mark> thought gdb could/should actually support the DWARF5 representation, Mark> but because the DW_TAG_variable was removed because the static data Mark> member wasn't referenced in the gdb testcases. I updated the gdb bug with some findings: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26525 Mark> This looks really good, and it makes all the FAILs in the gdb bug Mark> report PASS (when build with -gdwarf-5 as default). I thought this might be the case; thank you for trying it out. Tom
