https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44126
--- Comment #7 from Tom Tromey ---
I happened to be looking in this area and I see that gcc still
generates the old, incorrect form.
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-11 14:53 ---
I think the problem with this patch is that it leaves gdb no way
to determine which approach it should use. This is important because
there is a lot of existing code compiled with the incorrect approach.
Currently
--- Comment #5 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-11 15:07 ---
Jakub pointed out that gdb can just look for an isolated
DW_OP_constu to fall back to the old code.
I will write a gdb patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44126
--- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-11 20:02 ---
Ok, I committed the gdb change:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-06/msg00287.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44126
--- Comment #3 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-14 06:41 ---
Subject: Re: wrong location description for
DW_AT_vtable_elem_location
Dodji, want to look at this?
Sure.
Like, Jakub said, we need to synchronize with GDB. I'll test Jakub's
patch ASAP and push the change when
--- Comment #1 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-13 20:42 ---
An entry for a virtual function also has a DW_AT_vtable_elem_location
attribute whose value contains a location description yielding the address of
the slot for the function within the virtual function table for the
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-13 21:48 ---
If I understand it well, we should:
--- dwarf2out.c 2010-05-13 23:36:24.0 +0200
+++ dwarf2out.c2010-05-13 23:55:07.422464196 +0200
@@ -17094,10 +17094,19 @@ add_pure_or_virtual_attribute (dw_die_re
