From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12643 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2011 20:59:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 12587 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jan 2011 20:59:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_LWSHORTT X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:59:28 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD832BAC28; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:59:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id aggQ2KOKAdY0; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:59:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B948C2BAC1E; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:59:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 67A711459AD; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:59:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:06:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA v2] valprint.c / *-valprint.c: Don't lose `embedded_offset' Message-ID: <20110124205926.GB2413@adacore.com> References: <201101241322.42902.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201101241324.04771.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110124165624.GA2413@adacore.com> <201101241910.55018.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201101241910.55018.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg00470.txt.bz2 > Ah, so you're saying that most of the failures we get with FSF > gnat are related to some sort descriptive-type debug info support > or something like that, I guess? It's a little more involved than that, and I can't really claim that I understand all the issues, but basically, we have a bunch of changes that improve the quality of the debugging information. But they depend on the descriptive-type stuff. For us to be able to improve things in the short term, we need that one patch to go in first... I do understand that the patch is not getting a lot of enthusiasm, but failing that, we're going to have to wait for AdaCore's long-term interest in moving to standard DWARF. -- Joel