Re: [RFA] [1/5] Use DWARF-2 DW_AT_artificial information

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 05:46:35PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
>  > There are two things which gcc 3.x's DWARF-2 support marks as artificial:
>  >  - arguments (to constructors only?)
>  >  - methods provided by the compiler (any of operator=, copy constructor,
>  >    default constructor, virtual thunks).
>  > 
>  > In particular we do not want to print virtual thunks, and I don't see any
>  > reason to preserve printing operator= et al. if we don't have to (and if the
>  > user didn't provide them himself).
>  > 
>  > This patch is the first in a series of five to add support for both of these
>  > things.  It lays the groundwork for identifying artificial method arguments.
>  > The only interesting bit is removing an obsolete use of TYPE_FIELD_BITPOS -
>  > at one point, TYPE_FIELD_BITPOS on a function's argument was an index into
>  > the list of arguments.  We never used this anywhere and only the HP readers
>  > set it.  I delete it so that I can re-use that space.
>  > 
> 
> Have you tested on hpux? It doesn't seem like it should have an effect,
> but....

No.  I would love to if someone on this list could get me an HP/UX
account - especially one with the HP C++ compiler installed!

>  > I have tested the patches all together, but not individually; I'll commit
>  > them separately when approved, but I'm going to wait until they've all been
>  > approved.  They should work on their own, though.
>  > 
> 
> I think this is a bit dangerous assumption, do they compile on their own?
> 
>  > OK to commit this one?
> 
> Looks ok to me.  This is a fairly self-contained patch. I would think
> you can check this in, for start, while I look at the rest of the
> series. It should have no visible effect on GDB's behavior, right?

It certainly should have no effect.  I haven't compiled them on their
own - I would before committing certainly - just eyeballed them.

I'll test and commit this along with any others approved by the time I
get a chance to test - tomorrow, probably.  The type system doesn't
have an explicit maintainer, so I assume that you can approve it.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer