On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 01:17:32PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 12:31 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-04-14 at 23:19 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 11:03 -0700, Cary Coutant wrote:
> > > > >> The DWARF bits are fine with me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks. Who can approve the other bits?
> > > >
> > > > You should probably get C and C++ front end approval. I'm not really
> > > > sure who needs to review patches in c-family/. Since the part in c/ is
> > > > so tiny, maybe all you need is a C++ front end maintainer. Both
> > > > Richard Henderson and Jason Merrill are global reviewers, so either of
> > > > them could approve the whole thing.
> > >
> > > Thanks, I added them to the CC.
> > >
> > > > > When approved should I wait till stage 1 opens before committing?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. The PR you're fixing is an enhancement request, not a regression,
> > > > so it needs to wait.
> > >
> > > Since stage one just opened up again this seems a good time to re-ask
> > > for approval then :) Rebased patch against current trunk attached.
> >
> > Ping. Tom already pushed his patches to GDB that take advantage of the
> > new information if available.
>
> Ping2. Please let me know if I should ping/cc other people to get this
> reviewed.
Do you want to add DW_AT_type to DW_TAG_enumeration only if it has explicit
underlying type (enum class foo: char { ... };) or even when the underlying
type is computed emplicitly (then you'd just use TREE_TYPE of the
ENUMERAL_TYPE if non-NULL).
Jakub
