On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 08:55:26PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:40:12PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > For GCC 11, I think let's fix the regression with your (Jakub) earlier
> > patch, maybe only for DIEs with DW_AT_const_value.
>
> Thanks.
> Following works too, so
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:40:12PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> For GCC 11, I think let's fix the regression with your (Jakub) earlier
> patch, maybe only for DIEs with DW_AT_const_value.
Thanks.
Following works too, so I'll test it tonight.
2021-02-09 Jakub Jelinek
PR debug/98755
On 9/1/20 2:46 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/25/20 5:19 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Mon, 2020-08-24 at 17:38 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
This looks incorrect to me, that is a workaround for a real GCC bug.
Shouldn't we instead do something like (untested) following patch?
I mean, for DWARF <
On 8/25/20 5:19 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Mon, 2020-08-24 at 17:38 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
This looks incorrect to me, that is a workaround for a real GCC bug.
Shouldn't we instead do something like (untested) following patch?
I mean, for DWARF < 5 the static data members were using
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 05:38:28PM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Shouldn't we instead do something like (untested) following patch?
> > I mean, for DWARF < 5 the static data members were using DW_TAG_member,
> > which has been always marked by the function, so IMHO we should also
Hi,
On Mon, 2020-08-24 at 17:38 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > This looks incorrect to me, that is a workaround for a real GCC bug.
> >
> > Shouldn't we instead do something like (untested) following patch?
> > I mean, for DWARF < 5 the static data members were using DW_TAG_member,
> > which
On 8/24/20 1:40 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 02:56:55PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
In DWARF5 class variables (static data members) are represented with a
DW_TAG_variable instead of a DW_TAG_member. Make sure the variable isn't
optimized away in the constexpr-var-1.C
>> 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
Hi Jakub,
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 07:40:51PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 02:56:55PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > In DWARF5 class variables (static data members) are represented with a
> > DW_TAG_variable instead of a DW_TAG_member. Make sure the variable isn't
> >
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 02:56:55PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> In DWARF5 class variables (static data members) are represented with a
> DW_TAG_variable instead of a DW_TAG_member. Make sure the variable isn't
> optimized away in the constexpr-var-1.C testcase so we can still match (2)
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
