From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26698 invoked by alias); 21 May 2009 03:22:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 26684 invoked by uid 22791); 21 May 2009 03:22:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout2.012.net.il (HELO mtaout2.012.net.il) (84.95.2.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 May 2009 03:22:48 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout2.012.net.il by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KJZ0070059W7S00@i_mtaout2.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 21 May 2009 06:22:45 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.115.215]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KJZ00D8W5DXDZX0@i_mtaout2.012.net.il>; Thu, 21 May 2009 06:22:45 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 03:22:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix printing frame arguments for COFF debug info In-reply-to: <20090520213200.GE16152@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <837i0bp2bb.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83d4a9q9e5.fsf@gnu.org> <20090520213200.GE16152@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-05/txt/msg00449.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:32:00 -0700 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > The first step towards solving this is to fix coffread.c, as in the > > patch I suggest below. OK to commit it? > > > 2009-05-16 Eli Zaretskii > > > > * coffread.c (process_coff_symbol): Set the symbol's language to > > the language of current_subfile. > > That seems like a sensible change, and it is something we also do > in the stabs reader, so I'd say this is OK. Thanks. > > Even if this patch is accepted, I'm not sure that's all we need to do. > > At least minsyms.c:prim_record_minimal_symbol_and_info also sets the > > symbol's language to language_auto. Should we make sure neither > > common_val_print nor val_print ever get language_auto as the language? > > That is, should we fall back to current_language in that case? > > I see that this is addressed in one of your followup messages Not really, no. The followup messages deal with a different problem. This issue, i.e. whether common_val_print and/or val_print should be defensive about getting language_auto, still remains. I'd like to hear your opinion about that.