On 2/9/21 9:24 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de> writes:
> 
> Tom> +	{
> Tom> +	  complaint (_("unable to handle array child DIE %s"
> Tom> +		       " - DIE at %s [in module %s]"),
> Tom> +		     dwarf_tag_name (child_die->tag),
> Tom> +		     sect_offset_str (die->sect_off),
> Tom> +		     objfile_name (cu->per_objfile->objfile));
> Tom> +	  return NULL;
> Tom> +	}
> 
> This seems a bit too strong to me.  A normal DWARF extension mechanism
> is to add new "unexpected" children to a DIE.  In many (maybe most)
> cases, it's fine to just ignore these.
> 
> Maybe another approach would be to bail out if range_types.empty(),
> issuing a complaint then.  This wouldn't mention
> DW_TAG_generic_subrange, but that seems ok to me.

Ack, done.

> Users don't really read complaints.  Maybe even gdb developers don't ;)

Heh :)

Committed as attached.

Thanks,
- Tom