From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16365 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2004 01:29:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 16358 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2004 01:29:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2004 01:29:03 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AvnrC-00037M-59; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:29:02 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, r6144 , mec.gnu@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Branch created for inter-compilation-unit references Message-ID: <20040225012902.GA11745@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com, r6144 , mec.gnu@mindspring.com References: <20040221200814.GA28652@nevyn.them.org> <20040225001850.GA24036@nevyn.them.org> <403BEDC3.3040704@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <403BEDC3.3040704@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00351.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 07:35:15PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >I will start submitting preliminary patches, those which can also act > >as bug-fixes or optimizations to the current dwarf2 code, tonight or > >tomorrow. Merging the branch may have to wait until after GDB 6.1. > >Personally, I'd love for it to be included, since the sooner we release > >a GDB that can understand this data the sooner GCC can emit it by > >default; but I want at least some more testing on the branch before > >I suggest that. My timing for this project was somewhat unfortunate. > > Er, given that GCC 3.4 branch is emiting DW_OP_piece, isn't that more > urgent? Probably. As I said, I try to do large projects roughly FIFO, and this has been on my TODO list a lot longer than DW_OP_piece has. If you're interested in DW_OP_piece support for 6.1, I can certainly look into it after this is done. It will probably be less work. I don't want to try to juggle two large dwarf2 projects at the same time, though. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer