From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14877 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2002 02:41:58 -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 14861 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2002 02:41:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Jun 2002 02:41:52 -0000 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (remus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.252]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA27894; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 938E0107D4; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:41:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15635.58305.420654.958886@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:41:00 -0000 To: Jim Blandy Cc: Elena Zannoni , Jason Merrill , Dan Nicolaescu , binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [very old] Re: dwarf2 cleanup In-Reply-To: References: <200102151617.aa17403@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> <15634.29938.777456.889449@localhost.redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00462.txt.bz2 Jim Blandy writes: > > Elena Zannoni 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