Re: [PATCH] "info source" now includes producer string

Doug Evans
2015-01-06T00:28:25Z

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
>> Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:41:52 -0800
>>
>> bash$ g++ -g -Og hello.cc -o hello
>> bash$ gdb hello
>> (gdb) start
>> (gdb) info source
>> Current source file is hello.cc
>> Compilation directory is /home/dje
>> Located in /home/dje/hello.cc
>> Contains 8 lines.
>> Source language is c++.
>> Producer is GNU C++ 4.8.2 -mtune=generic -march=x86-64 -g -Og -fstack-protector.
>> Compiled with DWARF 2 debugging format.
>> Does not include preprocessor macro info.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> * NEWS: "info source" command now display producer string if present.
> ^^^^^^^
> "displays"
>
>> --- a/gdb/NEWS
>> +++ b/gdb/NEWS
>> @@ -113,6 +113,9 @@ VAX running Ultrix vax-*-ultrix*
>> and "assf"), have been removed. Use the "sharedlibrary" command, or
>> its alias "share", instead.
>>
>> +* The "info source" command now displays the producer string if it was
>> + present in the debug info.
>
> I wonder whether we should replace "producer" with something less
> abstract. Would "compilation command line" be accurate enough?

The producer string can be anything, it's whatever the compiler
decides, so I'm really hesitant to be specific here (and "command
line" is too specific for me), because often it will be wrong.

I don't mind introducing users to the term "producer".
It's the term we use, and it's not gdb or even gnu-specific.

>
>> --- a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
>> +++ b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
>> @@ -16279,6 +16279,8 @@ its length, in lines,
>> @item
>> which programming language it is written in,
>> @item
>> +if the debug information provides it, the program that compiled the file,
>
> Not just the program, but also its command line, right?

Again, I don't want to provide too much detail here.
What the compiler decides to put in its producer string is up to the compiler.

>
> Okay with those fixed.