Re: RFC: Support DW_TAG_entry_point

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:

Jan> I guess the whole patch tagets just one compiler's (ifort's?) use
Jan> of DW_TAG_entry_point.  DWARF standard also says neither that
Jan> DW_TAG_entry_point should be a child of DW_TAG_subprogram nor
Jan> that it should not have its own DW_AT_high_pc.  Therefore
Jan> assuming DW_TAG_entry_point will be the first child DIE is
Jan> ensured for the target compiler this patch was made for.

Ok, I went and looked through DWARF 3 again to try to understand more.

I think this means that the compiler in question is emitting invalid
DWARF, or at least using its own extension.  In that case I suppose I
would be more inclined to allow this, provided that it doesn't impact
the possibility of correctly implementing DW_TAG_entry_point in the
future (maybe the patch already does this too, I really don't know).

Assuming this is an extension, I would like a comment to that effect,
mentioning the compiler.  A test case wouldn't hurt, either.

Tom