From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31544 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2005 02:37:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31520 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2005 02:37:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ausmtp02.au.ibm.com) (202.81.18.187) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Apr 2005 02:37:44 -0000 Received: from sd0112e0.au.ibm.com (d23rh903.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.201]) by ausmtp02.au.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j3T2XqbP299240 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:33:52 +1000 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.250.237]) by sd0112e0.au.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j3T2eLdw137996 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:40:22 +1000 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j3T2bbiZ022706 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:37:37 +1000 Received: from ibmcsdl9m89c83 (ibmcsdl-9m89c83.cn.ibm.com [9.181.134.65]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j3T2bVEX022618; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:37:35 +1000 Message-ID: <012801c54c64$5b02d500$4186b509@ibmcsdl9m89c83> From: "Wu Zhou" To: "Daniel Jacobowitz" Cc: References: <001f01c54a0b$146e8450$7286b509@ibmcsdl9m89c83> <20050426031822.GA4998@nevyn.them.org> <20050427200901.GA25180@nevyn.them.org> <019101c54bc9$20360cd0$4186b509@ibmcsdl9m89c83> <20050428131902.GB29277@nevyn.them.org> Subject: Re: about how to add support to new c++ compiler in GDB Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 02:37:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00414.txt.bz2 > Could you please respond to the list in the future? Thanks in advance! Sorry, I forgeted to cc the mail-list. Ever since I will do that as you request. > > > > Daniel, I noticed that you also include some patches to completion.exp, > > volatile.exp and gdb1355.exp. That is also what I wan to include. Besides > > these "long" or "long int", "unsigned short" or "short unsigned" problem, I > > also encounter one problem with "signed" while running volatile.exp with xlc > > compiler. xlc compiler take "signed" as the default. so in the outputed > > debuginfo of function qux2: > > > > qux2 (volatile unsigned char vuc, const volatile int cvi, > > volatile short /*&*/vsr, volatile long *vlp, float *volatile fpv, > > const volatile signed char *const volatile cvscpcv) > > > > cvscpcv will be interpreted as "const volatile char *const volatile". Do you > > think that it is ok to also add a bracket around "signed" to let this pass? > > Thanks. > > Er... that is not OK. If necessary we can add an XFAIL for xlc, > though. This is a bug in xlc; "signed char" and "char, defaulting to > signed behavior" are not the same types in C. > OK. Maybe I could try to convince XLC guys to fix this first. > > BTW: do you means that you sill have another 40(41 - 1) patches for RVCT and > > that this patch is only the first one? If it is like that, I am really > > curious about how many codes you will add into GDB. :-) > > No, this is all 41 rolled up into one big diff :-) Then, which part will get your first attention? I suggest you start with eliminating the dependence on DW_TAG_containing_type first. Then XLC guys could go on improving their debuginfo output. What is your point on this? Please comment. Thanks. BTW. I had verify your patch, It did worked. No SEGV error any more. Althought there are still some error, most of them should be XLC specific I believe. I could work with XLC guys to improve them. Cheers - Wu Zhou