[Bug debug/39436] New: g++ does not emit DW_TAG_try_block or DW_TAG_catch_block

[Bug debug/39436] New: g++ does not emit DW_TAG_try_block or DW_TAG_catch_block

[tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org]

g++ does not emit DW_TAG_try_block or DW_TAG_catch_block.
It probably should.


-- 
           Summary: g++ does not emit DW_TAG_try_block or DW_TAG_catch_block
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.4.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: debug
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39436

[Bug debug/39436] g++ does not emit DW_TAG_try_block or DW_TAG_catch_block

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2009-03-11 21:08:38
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39436

[Bug debug/39436] g++ does not emit DW_TAG_try_block or DW_TAG_catch_block

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39436

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So I could get ICC to produce them but clang does not.

[Bug debug/39436] g++ does not emit DW_TAG_try_block or DW_TAG_catch_block

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39436

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           See Also|                            |https://github.com/llvm/llv
                   |                            |m-project/issues/14523

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
LLVM's bug report: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/14523 :).

[Bug debug/39436] g++ does not emit DW_TAG_try_block or DW_TAG_catch_block

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39436

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Interesting it was mentioned here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2003-12/msg00336.html

I wonder if we could mark the BLOCK as being the try block and then output
DW_TAG_try_block instead of DW_TAG_lexical_block . Likewise for catch.

Maybe I will give that a go for GCC 15. Though I might be only handle the C++
front-end. Others will need to handle other FEs.

[Bug debug/39436] g++ does not emit DW_TAG_try_block or DW_TAG_catch_block

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39436

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So for space, on LP64 (and LLP64) hosts, there is a free 32bits in the BLOCK
structure:
```
  tree chain;

  unsigned block_num;

  location_t locus; // unsigned
  location_t end_locus; // unsigned

  tree vars;
```

So I can at least add a 3bit field without increasing the size too.

[Bug debug/39436] g++ does not emit DW_TAG_try_block or DW_TAG_catch_block

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39436

--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
for try blocks, I do need the catch blocks so do it as the siblings.
For catch blocks, the child will be type that is being caught as a
DW_TAG_formal_parameter/DW_TAG_unspecified_parameters .

[Bug debug/39436] g++ does not emit DW_TAG_try_block or DW_TAG_catch_block

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39436

--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> for try blocks, I do need the catch blocks so do it as the siblings.
> For catch blocks, the child will be type that is being caught as a
> DW_TAG_formal_parameter/DW_TAG_unspecified_parameters .

Note DW_TAG_unspecified_parameters is for the catch(...) case.

I am adding this more for my usage when I am coding this up to make sure I
understand how this works.

[Bug debug/39436] g++ does not emit DW_TAG_try_block or DW_TAG_catch_block

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39436

--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > for try blocks, I do need the catch blocks so do it as the siblings.
> > For catch blocks, the child will be type that is being caught as a
> > DW_TAG_formal_parameter/DW_TAG_unspecified_parameters .
> 
> Note DW_TAG_unspecified_parameters is for the catch(...) case.
> 
> I am adding this more for my usage when I am coding this up to make sure I
> understand how this works.

for the VAR_DECL of the catch, I think I should be able to use
gen_formal_parameter_die.

This means the block structure will need to grow since I need another tree
here. Or maybe not. Since there seems like there are 2 BLOCKs here for the
catch.