From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12437 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2001 22:27:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12407 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2001 22:27:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO www.cgsoftware.com) (208.155.65.221) by hostedprojects.ges.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Nov 2001 22:27:38 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.cgsoftware.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA21237; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:27:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:00:00 -0000 From: Daniel Berlin To: Michael Snyder cc: Jim Blandy , Daniel Jacobowitz , Subject: Re: RFA: GCC stabs don't contain prototype info In-Reply-To: <3C0410D8.58D8D0FB@cygnus.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00301.txt.bz2 On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Michael Snyder wrote: > Jim Blandy wrote: > > > > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > > Is there a standard stabs convention for this? If so, it would be a > > > good idea to make development GCC emit it. > > > > Yes, there's the encoding developed by Sun, described in the GNU stabs > > manual. It looks to me like GDB is ready to consume this info, so > > getting GCC to emit it would be great. > > > > Until that's done, however, this test should XFAIL, so other engineers > > won't waste their time re-analyzing the failure. (I don't mean to > > imply that you disagree; I just want to make things clear to the test > > suite maintainers.) > > FYI, it is not only stabs that fails this test. I've got a recent > elf/dwarf target that also fails it. Err, it shouldn't. Unless you really mean dwarf and not dwarf2. GCC adds DW_AT_prototyped to prototyped functions. And gdb consumes it. > The problem wherein GDB cannot > reliably make this distinction is long standing, and much discussed > in the past. Unfortunately most of the people who have taken part > in this discussion aren't around any more. > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Berlin To: Michael Snyder Cc: Jim Blandy , Daniel Jacobowitz , Subject: Re: RFA: GCC stabs don't contain prototype info Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:27:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <3C0410D8.58D8D0FB@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg00516.html Message-ID: <20011127142700.N-XNrjASt95s062aDKHoxPkheuS2O5I-LJRlhL8dtAs@z> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Michael Snyder wrote: > Jim Blandy wrote: > > > > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > > Is there a standard stabs convention for this? If so, it would be a > > > good idea to make development GCC emit it. > > > > Yes, there's the encoding developed by Sun, described in the GNU stabs > > manual. It looks to me like GDB is ready to consume this info, so > > getting GCC to emit it would be great. > > > > Until that's done, however, this test should XFAIL, so other engineers > > won't waste their time re-analyzing the failure. (I don't mean to > > imply that you disagree; I just want to make things clear to the test > > suite maintainers.) > > FYI, it is not only stabs that fails this test. I've got a recent > elf/dwarf target that also fails it. Err, it shouldn't. Unless you really mean dwarf and not dwarf2. GCC adds DW_AT_prototyped to prototyped functions. And gdb consumes it. > The problem wherein GDB cannot > reliably make this distinction is long standing, and much discussed > in the past. Unfortunately most of the people who have taken part > in this discussion aren't around any more. >