* [Bug debug/7081] DWARF enhancements for C++
[not found] <20020620021604.7081.jcownie@etnus.com>
@ 2003-05-27 6:33 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-05-27 11:28 ` jcownie@etnus.com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: dhazeghi@yahoo.com @ 2003-05-27 6:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7081
------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi@yahoo.com 2003-05-27 06:24 -------
Hello,
can you confirm what the current status of this report is? Particularly, are the proposed
enhancements still missing from gcc 3.3 and/or gcc mainline? Thanks,
Dara
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug debug/7081] DWARF enhancements for C++
[not found] <20020620021604.7081.jcownie@etnus.com>
2003-05-27 6:33 ` [Bug debug/7081] DWARF enhancements for C++ dhazeghi@yahoo.com
@ 2003-05-27 11:28 ` jcownie@etnus.com
2003-05-27 15:08 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jcownie@etnus.com @ 2003-05-27 11:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7081
------- Additional Comments From jcownie@etnus.com 2003-05-27 10:03 -------
Subject: Re: DWARF enhancements for C++
> can you confirm what the current status of this report is?
> Particularly, are the proposed enhancements still missing from gcc 3.3
> and/or gcc mainline? Thanks,
GCC 3.3 still emits DW_TAG_structure_type when DW_TAG_class should be
used. I don't have a mainline gcc to check, but if you do it should be
trivial to do.
Daniel's comment suggests that the second issue (vtable information)
isn't going to get fixed.
I think that's a pity, because replicating the class layout algorithm
in the debugger seems unnecessarily complex to me (after all, the same
argument would say that there's no need to output offsets for class
members since they can be generated from the ABI too). Having the same
piece of code in the debugger and the compiler leads to the
possibility of actually having a _slightly different_ piece of code in
each place with concomitant bugs, and means that when the ABI changes
(as it did between GCC 2.x and GCC 3.x) the change has to occur in
both places. (Yes, I know, it's _right_ now and isn't ever going to
change again :-)
Whatever, fixing the tag would be worthwhile even if you don't want to
emit information about the vtable pointer.
-- Jim
James Cownie <jcownie@etnus.com>
Etnus, LLC. +44 117 9071438
http://www.etnus.com
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug debug/7081] DWARF enhancements for C++
[not found] <20020620021604.7081.jcownie@etnus.com>
2003-05-27 6:33 ` [Bug debug/7081] DWARF enhancements for C++ dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-05-27 11:28 ` jcownie@etnus.com
@ 2003-05-27 15:08 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
2003-06-02 16:54 ` drow@gcc.gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia@physics.uc.edu @ 2003-05-27 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7081
pinskia@physics.uc.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2003-05-27 15:04:35
date| |
------- Additional Comments From pinskia@physics.uc.edu 2003-05-27 15:04 -------
It is in 3.3 but no one has checked the mainline yet.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug debug/7081] DWARF enhancements for C++
[not found] <20020620021604.7081.jcownie@etnus.com>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2003-05-27 15:08 ` pinskia@physics.uc.edu
@ 2003-06-02 16:54 ` drow@gcc.gnu.org
2003-06-16 2:23 ` dberlin@gcc.gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: drow@gcc.gnu.org @ 2003-06-02 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7081
drow@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2003-05-27 15:04:35 |2003-06-02 16:54:39
date| |
------- Additional Comments From drow@gcc.gnu.org 2003-06-02 16:54 -------
Present in mainline also.
I'm now inclined to agree with the submitter that both should be fixed.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug debug/7081] DWARF enhancements for C++
[not found] <20020620021604.7081.jcownie@etnus.com>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-02 16:54 ` drow@gcc.gnu.org
@ 2003-06-16 2:23 ` dberlin@gcc.gnu.org
2003-06-16 2:42 ` dberlin@gcc.gnu.org
2003-12-04 1:39 ` wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: dberlin@gcc.gnu.org @ 2003-06-16 2:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7081
------- Additional Comments From dberlin@gcc.gnu.org 2003-06-16 02:23 -------
While i'll fix the first, i don't have the info to fix the second, and until
their is a DWARF3 standard way of describing this, or an extension is proposed,
i plan on closing this bug as fixed, and let him file a second bug. This should
have been two bugs anyway.
The questions that need to be answered include:
1. What exactly do you want in terms of info about the vtable pointer? The
location? The way to get at each element of the vtable? What?
2. This is not externally visible, or programmer created, info. It's completely
internal to the ABI. It should *not* be described as a member variable or a
member function of the class. Thus, it needs a new tag. Otherwise, we'd have to
fudge the name to be something like "vtable", which will cause people unfamiliar
with the internals of C++ to ask us where this "vtable" member is coming from in
their debugger. In reality, it should be a DW_TAG_vtable or something, that is
a child of the class, and contains attributes like DW_AT_location telling you
the location of the vtable, and probably some child describing how to get each
element as a dwarf3 function.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug debug/7081] DWARF enhancements for C++
[not found] <20020620021604.7081.jcownie@etnus.com>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-16 2:23 ` dberlin@gcc.gnu.org
@ 2003-06-16 2:42 ` dberlin@gcc.gnu.org
2003-12-04 1:39 ` wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: dberlin@gcc.gnu.org @ 2003-06-16 2:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7081
dberlin@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2003-06-02 16:54:39 |2003-06-16 02:42:39
date| |
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug debug/7081] DWARF enhancements for C++
[not found] <20020620021604.7081.jcownie@etnus.com>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-16 2:42 ` dberlin@gcc.gnu.org
@ 2003-12-04 1:39 ` wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2003-12-04 1:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-12-04 01:39 -------
There was a patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-06/msg01748.html
This was partly OKed, and then the thread died out while discussing how to best
implement the C++ FE part of the patch. I'm just including this info here for
reference.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7081
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread