Re: [very old] Re: dwarf2 cleanup

[Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>]

Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com> writes:
> Jim Blandy writes:
>  > The gdb/dwarf2read.c portion of this change is approved.  I'm sorry I
>  > waited 16 months to review this straightforward change.
>  > 
>  > The include/elf/dwarf2 stuff is shared with binutils (BFD uses it), so
>  > I think we need their stamp, as well.
> 
> A couple of things. dwarf2.h has changed since the time this patch was
> posted.  So this patch would need to be updated.  I've also noticed that
> the corresponding changes to gcc/dwarf2.h, etc. were never committed.
> Rereading the old gcc-patches thread, there were also problems with the
> use of '#' instead of STRINGX.  

The GCC patches were waiting on approval for the corresponding GDB
patches, to avoid divergence.

The stringification issues had been resolved, I thought; the last
message in the thread is from Kaveh R. Ghazi, and says:

    This works:

     > #define FOO(x) STRINGIFY(x)
     > FOO(bar)

    You get "bar", which is I think what Dan did.

> There are 2 versions of dwarf2.h, which could be unified. I've heard
> 'rumours' that this was going to eventually happen, i.e. gcc would
> drop its own version and just use the include/elf one. Jason? Would
> this be feasible?

I hope so!  That confused me for a bit when I ran into it.