From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6722 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2013 04:35:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 4177 invoked by uid 48); 26 Feb 2013 04:35:19 -0000 From: "jason at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug debug/37237] Debug information for virtual destructors omits DW_AT_vtable_elem_location Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 04:35:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: debug X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jason at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg02424.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37237 --- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill 2013-02-26 04:35:16 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > What I'd like to know is what is guaranteed. > Previously gcc didn't emit the linkage name for any destructor -- but > this would make the proposed solution much harder to implement (gdb > would have to implement name mangling...). > So I suppose I'd like a guarantee that the destructor will be emitted > with at least one linkage name. I would guess that the earlier situation was a bug whereby we were only emitting code for the cloned function, not the clones, and we don't give a linkage name for an abstract function. In any case, it was a bug, and we should continue to emit linkage names like we do for any other function.