Re: Question concerning comment in symtab.h

[Daniel Berlin <dan@www.cgsoftware.com>]

On Wed, 9 May 2001, Paul Hilfinger wrote:

>
> >   Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 20:21:26 -0400
> >   From: Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com>
> >
> >   On Wednesday, May 9, 2001, at 08:04 PM, Paul N. Hilfinger wrote:
> >
> >   >        ....  As of 16 Apr 93, this flag is never used to distinguish
> >   >        between gcc2 and the native compiler.
> >   >	    ...
> >   >
> >   >     unsigned char gcc_compile_flag;
> >   >
> >   > Am I correct that this comment is wrong?  ...
> >   >
> >   > [I ask because we may have another use for BLOCK_GCC_COMPILED, ...
> >
> >   What do you want to do with BLOCK_GCC_COMPILED?
>
> Right, and that's our intention.   So, during symbol reading, one is now
> supposed to reference gcc_compile_flag directly (and not reference it at
> all elsewhere)?
You mean proceessing_gcc_compilation. This is what BLOCK_GCC_COMPILED gets
set to.
It only matters for STABS, anyway. For DWARF2, it's always set to 2, and
i'm not sure about mdebug and xcoff.

>
> And, again, my original question: Is the "As of 16 Apr 93" comment above
> indeed incorrect, or am I misunderstanding its intent?
Technically, it's correct.  Or at least, it's supposed to be.
Do all the hacks necessary in the symbol readers, unless it's literally
impossible.
Heck, i'd rather see someone have to add a field to the type structure to
or symbol structure to handle a difference, then introduce hacks into
hand_function_call or something.
 >
> P. Hilfinger
>