Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfc/rfa] accept DW_TAG_namespace and friends, possibly on 5.3
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:51:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021022205154.GA7931@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ro1smyy5hs6.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>

On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:40:25PM -0700, David Carlton wrote:
> The current situation around C++ namespace debugging info is that GCC
> isn't generating it because, if it were generating it, it would
> produce debugging info that GDB really can't handle.  Basically,
> DW_TAG_namespace entries have children that are important, so GDB has
> to know a little bit about those nodes in order not to miss large
> chunks of debugging info.  (This is true whether or not GDB wants to
> do anything particularly namespace-specific with that debugging info.)
> 
> So it seems to me like it would be a good idea to change GDB as
> quickly as possible to not get confused by DW_TAG_namespace (as well
> as DW_TAG_imported_declaration and DW_TAG_imported_module): we
> shouldn't wait until adding more namespace functionality to GDB.  For
> example, if that support makes it into GDB 5.3, then maybe GCC 3.3
> will be able to generate the appropriate debugging info, so when a GDB
> 5.4 (or whatever) rolls around that handles namespaces better, users
> will be able to take advantage of it immediately (instead of having to
> wait for the next GCC release).
> 
> Here are some patches to let GDB accept that debugging information: I
> think it would be a good idea to get it into 5.3 as well as mainline,
> if possible.  They're quite minimal changes: they make sure that, when
> reading partial symbols, we descend into DW_TAG_namespace entries,
> that when reading full symbols, we read children of DW_TAG_namespace
> entries (but we don't keep around any more namespace information than
> we do currently: e.g. we still get names from
> DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name), and that we don't complain about the
> presence of DW_TAG_imported_declaration or DW_TAG_imported_module (but
> we also don't do anything useful about that info).

I'd like to raise my voice in support of this patch, for both trunk and
5.3-branch.  David's quite right - we need this in order for GCC to
move forward, in order for us to move forward.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


  reply	other threads:[~2002-10-22 20:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-10-22 13:40 David Carlton
2002-10-22 13:51 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2002-10-22 14:25   ` Andrew Cagney
2002-10-22 14:17 ` Daniel Berlin
2002-10-22 14:40   ` David Carlton
2002-10-22 15:09   ` Daniel Berlin
2002-10-22 15:33     ` David Carlton
2002-10-22 16:48       ` Daniel Berlin
2002-10-22 15:29 ` Elena Zannoni
2002-10-22 16:02   ` David Carlton
2002-10-22 16:10     ` Elena Zannoni
2002-10-22 16:14       ` David Carlton
2002-10-23 11:36       ` David Carlton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20021022205154.GA7931@nevyn.them.org \
    --to=drow@mvista.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox