From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id B03EE385E827; Wed, 29 May 2024 11:18:22 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B03EE385E827 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1716981502; bh=LOA5N4MlKS42yFL8aP3pfRy2j+Aunsqc/e1z6SwIb+4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=p+WAwybvYWyZboRnWfPkT9iP4xNymujZ21ZYM6sSquiSEurBHoJTkXMVhDC27Tojl wT1fVWGiQPA7Yoi8iLXRREXqJWQX3slKswYfMtH8kjHn+tuWgv0SGZQkOnFIEJ07/G DRjWnixZXuxBgptlgwLTlHLC2HXJnB0FZULloBGA= From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug debug/115272] [debug] complex type is hard to related back to base type Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 11:18:22 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: debug X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D115272 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- How does it work for 'double' vs. 'long double' themselves? <1><32>: Abbrev Number: 3 (DW_TAG_base_type) <33> DW_AT_byte_size : 16 <34> DW_AT_encoding : 4 (float) <35> DW_AT_name : (indirect string, offset: 0x60): long double so if it's not distinguishable via DW_AT_byte_size you look into DW_AT_name as well? So it looks like doing the same for _Complex long doub= le is perfectly in line?=