From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3716 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2011 15:00:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 3706 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Nov 2011 15:00:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_GD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:00:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pABF034V011547 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:00:03 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pABF03je028880; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:00:03 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pABF01Zx001605; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:00:02 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: manual updates for c++ References: <838vnngj7b.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <838vnngj7b.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:24:40 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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/msg00319.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Both -gstabs+ and -gdwarf-2 are obsolete nowadays Eli> On most platforms, but not on all of them. It's true that -gdwarf-2 Eli> is the default, though. No, -gdwarf-3 is the default. Someday it will be -gdwarf-4. -gdwarf-2 really is obsolete, DWARF 2 is quite ancient and there have been many important additions since then. -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. So, I think that sentence remains true. Perhaps it is untrue on platforms which are themselves obsolete. >> + 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. >> + Recent versions of @value{NGCC} support @option{-gdwarf-3} >> +@option{-gdwarf-4}; Eli> Should there be an "and" between the two option names? They are Eli> orthogonal, right? Yes. Tom