From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1333 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2014 20:15:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 1315 invoked by uid 89); 1 Jul 2014 20:15:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 20:15:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s61KFFwT014106 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 16:15:15 -0400 Received: from [10.36.116.113] (ovpn-116-113.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.113]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s61KFEEC014720; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 16:15:14 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Handle volatile array types in dwarf2read.c. From: Mark Wielaard To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <87ionhq6mg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> References: <1404164071-24432-1-git-send-email-mjw@redhat.com> <87simlrroa.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <1404238306.3766.17.camel@bordewijk.wildebeest.org> <87ionhq6mg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 20:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1404245713.3766.31.camel@bordewijk.wildebeest.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00026.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 12:24 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > This patch is ok. Thanks, pushed. > Well, I was thinking this: > > typedef int atype[23]; > const atype a; > > However, gcc omits the typedef from the DWARF, so I suppose some > hand-crafted DWARF would have to be written. I tried in a couple of ways, but GCC always happily optimizes the unnecessary typedefs away from the DWARF, so it probably is not an issue in practice if GDB doesn't completely handle that case. Cheers, Mark