From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2342 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2009 04:09:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 2332 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jul 2009 04:09:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:09:18 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EBB010624; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:09:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C4310623; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:09:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MS1EZ-0004AA-QM; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:09:15 -0400 Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jonas Maebe Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Pierre Muller Subject: Re: Is bitstring support still useful? Message-ID: <20090718040915.GA15792@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jonas Maebe , gdb@sourceware.org, Pierre Muller References: <20090717143315.GA29728@caradoc.them.org> <20090717144119.GA1298@caradoc.them.org> <4BD69DB5-124E-4BEF-9866-D278F59B9BC9@elis.ugent.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BD69DB5-124E-4BEF-9866-D278F59B9BC9@elis.ugent.be> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-07/txt/msg00122.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 05:00:54PM +0200, Jonas Maebe wrote: > The Free Pascal Compiler uses it for bitpacked arrays (arrays whose > element sizes are not multiples of 8 bits), because there does not > appear to be any other way to represent them in stabs. I've also > tried @P, but that seemed to be ignored by gdb (and there is no > reason why it would mean bitpacked rather than e.g. bytepacked). > > Bitpacked arrays are not used very much though, so if you can suggest > another way to generate Stabs debug information for them, that's fine > too (i.e., backwards compatibility is not that important in our > case). Does this compiler support DWARF, and if so, how do you represent them there? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery