testsuite patch asap).
Thanks,
Mark
From 6b3fbed4b2bfda22c6e55e151fbaef29c8208c39 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Wielaard m...@redhat.com
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 13:00:30 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] PR debug/16063. Add DW_AT_type to DW_TAG_enumeration.
Add a new lang-hook that provides the underlying
On 05/21/2014 09:27 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
+/* The C++ version of the enum_underlying_base_type langhook.
+ See also cp/semantics.c (finish_underlying_type). */
+static tree cxx_enum_underlying_base_type (const_tree type)
We usually leave a blank line between the comment and the function.
1b006e46754125c47544223aa6ee8a42d102fe4d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: mark mark@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:44:59 +
Subject: [PATCH] PR debug/16063. Add DW_AT_type to DW_TAG_enumeration.
Add a new lang-hook that provides the underlying base type of an
ENUMERAL_TYPE
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 04:50:35PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/13/2014 03:21 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
So the debugger doesn't have to guess the properties of the enum's
underlying base type, like size, encoding and signedness.
Well, the enum already has DW_AT_byte_size. It seems to me
On 05/20/2014 02:55 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 04:50:35PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/13/2014 03:21 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
So the debugger doesn't have to guess the properties of the enum's
underlying base type, like size, encoding and signedness.
Well, the enum
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:43:22AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/20/2014 02:55 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 04:50:35PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/13/2014 03:21 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
So the debugger doesn't have to guess the properties of the enum's
underlying
On 05/20/2014 01:51 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
The DWARF part isn't what this patch is blocked on. That has already
been discussed on the DWARF standard list, coordinated with the gdb
hackers and approved some months ago.
Fair enough.
The part that hasn't been reviewed
and approved yet is the
Rebased patch to current master attached. DWARF parts approved by
Cary Coutant, GDB already contains Tom Tromey's code to take advantage
of the new information. Earlier discussions:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00713.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01859.html
On 05/13/2014 03:21 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
So the debugger doesn't have to guess the properties of the enum's
underlying base type, like size, encoding and signedness.
Well, the enum already has DW_AT_byte_size. It seems to me that it
should also have DW_AT_encoding to provide the other
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:22:11PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 04/28/2014 08:37 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
The debugger cares about the actual underlying type used if the language
can use multiple. Either explicitly assigned by the user or implicitly
as derived by the language/compile flags
On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 13:17 +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
On 04/28/2014 08:37 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 14:23 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
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
On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 14:37 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 14:23 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 01:17:32PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Ping2. Please let me know if I should ping/cc other people to get this
reviewed.
Do you want to add
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++
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
On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 14:23 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 01:17:32PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
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
patches to GDB that take advantage of the
new information if available.
Thanks,
Mark
From 81c76099294a9d617798ed65095d7f8210d6f958 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Wielaard m...@redhat.com
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:05:16 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] PR debug/16063. Add DW_AT_type to DW_TAG_enumeration
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
On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 10:51 -0700, Cary Coutant wrote:
However it would be nice to be assured that the gcc change is ok in
principle first.
The DWARF bits are fine with me.
Thanks. Who can approve the other bits?
When approved should I wait till stage 1 opens before committing?
Thanks,
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
Mark == Mark Wielaard m...@redhat.com writes:
Mark Add a new lang-hook that provides the underlying base type of an
Mark ENUMERAL_TYPE. Including implementations for C and C++. Use this
Mark enum_underlying_base_type lang-hook in dwarf2out.c to add a DW_AT_type
Mark base type reference to a
However it would be nice to be assured that the gcc change is ok in
principle first.
The DWARF bits are fine with me.
-cary
Mar 2014 12:05:16 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] PR debug/16063. Add DW_AT_type to DW_TAG_enumeration.
Add a new lang-hook that provides the underlying base type of an
ENUMERAL_TYPE. Including implementations for C and C++. Use this
enum_underlying_base_type lang-hook in dwarf2out.c to add a DW_AT_type
and patch.
Thanks,
Mark
From b92c7933ebf8a09a97ca2419d253a0ac1acdca6f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Wielaard m...@redhat.com
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:05:16 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] PR debug/16063. Add DW_AT_type to DW_TAG_enumeration.
Add a new lang-hook that provides the underlying base type
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Mark Wielaard m...@redhat.com wrote:
Add a new lang-hook that provides the underlying base type of an
ENUMERAL_TYPE. Including implementations for C and C++. Use this
enum_underlying_base_type lang-hook in dwarf2out.c to add a DW_AT_type
base type reference to
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 10:26 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Mark Wielaard m...@redhat.com wrote:
Add a new lang-hook that provides the underlying base type of an
ENUMERAL_TYPE. Including implementations for C and C++. Use this
enum_underlying_base_type
gcc/cp/
* dwarf2out.c (gen_enumeration_type_die): Add DW_AT_type if
enum_underlying_base_type defined and DWARF version 3.
* langhooks.h (struct lang_hooks_for_types): Add
enum_underlying_base_type.
* langhooks-def.h
Add a new lang-hook that provides the underlying base type of an
ENUMERAL_TYPE. Including implementations for C and C++. Use this
enum_underlying_base_type lang-hook in dwarf2out.c to add a DW_AT_type
base type reference to a DW_TAG_enumeration.
gcc/
* dwarf2out.c
28 matches
Mail list logo
