From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 5362C3858408; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 01:49:36 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5362C3858408 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1712627376; bh=rXiIwu+fiFTNqGRRbZbZ75btpKC3EcOHEZ7MQuGXel0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Ux3appdjwxKpuTeVoohdeC0KrDJrREzQynPIqQgzMVfIJQAXScW1QBeBCO27YjHyq uPDbzNywgokWtoT4yjgZ1nKNVz7/5urtTtT4Oq1Pk/zj2iiGPZ0eb0pFKVqHbe1lNN 0noH4G9CuOIwUp5lZ2ul6WUA3dK74+WYA/6XO+2E= From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug debug/39436] g++ does not emit DW_TAG_try_block or DW_TAG_catch_block Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 01:49:35 +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: 4.4.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status assigned_to 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=3D39436 Andrew Pinski 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 --- 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.=