From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-391177-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 2716 invoked by alias); 7 May 2012 14:33:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 2699 invoked by uid 22791); 7 May 2012 14:33:43 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 May 2012 14:33:30 +0000
From: "jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug debug/53235] [4.8 Regression] 20120504 broke -fdebug-types-section
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 14:34:00 -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: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-53235-4-ybe5EWrGta@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-53235-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-53235-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg00795.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235

--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com> 2012-05-07 14:32:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The testcase is failing because of the change from "A*" to "struct A*"?

Yes.

> Is that an important distinction?

In other cases it even crashes GDB, originally filed as:
  http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14060
Or I see
  Internal error: non-aggregate type to value_struct_elt_for_reference
  Function "policy1::function" not defined.
  etc.

> If so, could you handle the case of a nameless typedef specially on your end?

Yes; I wanted to know first if this is an intended change.

FYI it does not seem to be DWARF compliant:
  The typedef entry has a DW_AT_name attribute whose value is a null-terminated
  string containing the name of the typedef as it appears in the source
program.