Re: about how to add support to new c++ compiler in GDB

Wu Zhou
2005-04-29T02:37:54Z

> Could you please respond to the list in the future? Thanks in advance!

Sorry, I forgeted to cc the mail-list. Ever since I will do that as you
request.

> >
> > Daniel, I noticed that you also include some patches to completion.exp,
> > volatile.exp and gdb1355.exp. That is also what I wan to include.
Besides
> > these "long" or "long int", "unsigned short" or "short unsigned"
problem, I
> > also encounter one problem with "signed" while running volatile.exp with
xlc
> > compiler. xlc compiler take "signed" as the default. so in the outputed
> > debuginfo of function qux2:
> >
> > qux2 (volatile unsigned char vuc, const volatile int cvi,
> > volatile short /*&*/vsr, volatile long *vlp, float *volatile fpv,
> > const volatile signed char *const volatile cvscpcv)
> >
> > cvscpcv will be interpreted as "const volatile char *const volatile". Do
you
> > think that it is ok to also add a bracket around "signed" to let this
pass?
> > Thanks.
>
> Er... that is not OK. If necessary we can add an XFAIL for xlc,
> though. This is a bug in xlc; "signed char" and "char, defaulting to
> signed behavior" are not the same types in C.
>

OK. Maybe I could try to convince XLC guys to fix this first.

> > BTW: do you means that you sill have another 40(41 - 1) patches for RVCT
and
> > that this patch is only the first one? If it is like that, I am really
> > curious about how many codes you will add into GDB. :-)
>
> No, this is all 41 rolled up into one big diff :-)

Then, which part will get your first attention? I suggest you start with
eliminating the dependence on DW_TAG_containing_type first. Then XLC guys
could go on improving their debuginfo output. What is your point on this?
Please comment. Thanks.

BTW. I had verify your patch, It did worked. No SEGV error any more.
Althought there are still some error, most of them should be XLC specific I
believe. I could work with XLC guys to improve them.

Cheers
- Wu Zhou