From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23885 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2011 15:47:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 23873 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Nov 2011 15:47:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL,TW_GD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il (HELO mtaout21.012.net.il) (80.179.55.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:47:10 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LUI00E006HU4B00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:47:09 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.231.130]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LUI00D226IKXV30@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:47:09 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:47:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: RFA: manual updates for c++ In-reply-to: To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83wrb6fyt3.fsf@gnu.org> References: <838vnngj7b.fsf@gnu.org> 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00320.txt.bz2 > From: Tom Tromey > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:00:01 -0700 > > -gstabs+ ... I don't know as much about stabs. My impression is that > they don't handle C++ very well. Certainly on the GCC side nobody puts > any work into them at all, and very little work in GDB. Maybe we should tell that stabs doesn't work well with C++, then. > >> + Starting with version > >> +4.7, @value{NGCC} can emit macro information in a more compact format. > > Eli> Why is this part important to a GDB user? > > A previous sentence mentions that the information is large. Assuming > that this earlier sentence provides any value to the GDB user, > mentioning that the problem can be ameliorated also seems appropriate. If you think it's important. It reads as if it isn't. How about removing that sentence about large information instead? Another nit: > +Now, we compile the program using the @sc{gnu} C compiler, > +@value{NGCC}. We pass the @option{-gdwarf-2} @footnote{This is the > +minimum. Recent versions of @value{NGCC} support @option{-gdwarf-3} > +@option{-gdwarf-4}; we recommend always choosing the most recent > +version of DWARF} AND @option{-g3} flags to ensure the compiler The last sentence in the @footnote doesn't have a period after it. Also the @footnote should immediately follow the character after which you want to see the footnote number in print, without any whitespace. Finally, the "AND" part will look better in print if you use @strong or @emph markup. Sorry I didn't see that before. Thanks.