From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Hilfinger To: dan@www.cgsoftware.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Question concerning comment in symtab.h Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 22:33:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010510053353.41B0FF28A4@nile.gnat.com> References: X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00139.html Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 00:20:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Berlin > > Right, and that's our intention. So, during symbol reading, one is now > > supposed to reference gcc_compile_flag directly (and not reference it at > > all elsewhere)? > You mean proceessing_gcc_compilation. This is what BLOCK_GCC_COMPILED gets > set to. Actually, I *did* mean gcc_compile_flag, which is what BLOCK_GCC_COMPILED is, but now I understand what you mean. > It only matters for STABS, anyway. For DWARF2, it's always set to 2, and > i'm not sure about mdebug and xcoff. I'm glad I brought this thread up, because now it's clear that I'm confused. If BLOCK_GCC_COMPILED is always 2 for DWARF2, then the current comments imply that only GCC produces DWARF2 (because a native compiler is supposed to set gcc_compile_flag, and thus BLOCK_GCC_COMPILED to 0). Is that true? > Do all the hacks necessary in the symbol readers, unless it's literally > impossible. > Heck, i'd rather see someone have to add a field to the type structure to > or symbol structure to handle a difference, then introduce hacks into > hand_function_call or something. I could just wait for the patch, but out of curiosity, how are you now going to handle the last argument of using_struct_return? P. Hilfinger