From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23719 invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2002 19:20:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23669 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2002 19:20:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zwingli.cygnus.com) (208.245.165.35) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Jun 2002 19:20:28 -0000 Received: by zwingli.cygnus.com (Postfix, from userid 442) id 7E5535EA11; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:20:27 -0500 (EST) To: Elena Zannoni Cc: Jason Merrill , Dan Nicolaescu , binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [very old] Re: dwarf2 cleanup References: <200102151617.aa17403@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> <15634.29938.777456.889449@localhost.redhat.com> From: Jim Blandy Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:20:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <15634.29938.777456.889449@localhost.redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00435.txt.bz2 Elena Zannoni 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.