On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 15:46 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
Rather than define the hook for C, let's have a default version that
uses the type_for_size langhook; that should work better for Ada.
That also makes the patch simpler. Updated patch attached.
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
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.
On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 10:33 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
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
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
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 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
14 matches
Mail list logo
