Re: [very old] Re: dwarf2 cleanup

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>]

Jim Blandy writes:
 > 
 > Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com> writes:
 > > Jim Blandy writes:
 > >  > The gdb/dwarf2read.c portion of this change is approved.  I'm sorry I
 > >  > waited 16 months to review this straightforward change.
 > >  > 
 > >  > The include/elf/dwarf2 stuff is shared with binutils (BFD uses it), so
 > >  > I think we need their stamp, as well.
 > > 
 > > A couple of things. dwarf2.h has changed since the time this patch was
 > > posted.  So this patch would need to be updated.  I've also noticed that
 > > the corresponding changes to gcc/dwarf2.h, etc. were never committed.
 > > Rereading the old gcc-patches thread, there were also problems with the
 > > use of '#' instead of STRINGX.  
 > 
 > The GCC patches were waiting on approval for the corresponding GDB
 > patches, to avoid divergence.
 > 

There isn't a hard dependence, the two copies are separate, but, yes,
it's good practice to keep them in sync. ``In theory'' the gcc patches
could have gone in. But if/when we unify the files, problem solved.

 > The stringification issues had been resolved, I thought; the last
 > message in the thread is from Kaveh R. Ghazi, and says:
 > 
 >     This works:
 > 
 >      > #define FOO(x) STRINGIFY(x)
 >      > FOO(bar)
 > 
 >     You get "bar", which is I think what Dan did.
 > 

This was the end of the gcc thread, which is where a second version of
the patch, changed this

#define DEFDWARF2_CALL_FRAME_INFO(SYM, VAL) case SYM: return #SYM;

to this

#define DEFDWARF2_CALL_FRAME_INFO(SYM, VAL) case SYM: return STRINGIFY (SYM);

What I was saying is that the same should be done with the
corresponding gdb patch. I said STRINGX when I should have said
STRINGIFY. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 > > There are 2 versions of dwarf2.h, which could be unified. I've heard
 > > 'rumours' that this was going to eventually happen, i.e. gcc would
 > > drop its own version and just use the include/elf one. Jason? Would
 > > this be feasible?
 > 
 > I hope so!  That confused me for a bit when I ran into it.

Actually, looking more closely, those functions are the same as well.


Elena