From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19862 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2001 21:06:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 19848 invoked by uid 71); 14 Dec 2001 21:06:01 -0000 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 13:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20011214210601.19847.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Craig Rodrigues Subject: Re: c++/3524: Source can not be comiled using option -gdwarf Reply-To: Craig Rodrigues X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00853.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/3524; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Craig Rodrigues To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: c++/3524: Source can not be comiled using option -gdwarf Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:55:29 -0500 ----- Forwarded message from Bailing Li ----- Delivered-To: rodrigc@gcc.gnu.org From: "Bailing Li" To: rodrigc@gcc.gnu.org Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 19:40:02 GMT X-Mailer: Netscape Webmail Subject: Re: c++/3524: Source can not be comiled using option -gdwarf X-Accept-Language: en Not really. Using makes the code buildable, but it crashed in my pgdbg debug which is dwarf based. What's the difference between -gdwarf and -gdwarf-2? Thanks any information, Bailing ----- Original Message ----- From: rodrigc@gcc.gnu.org Date: Friday, December 14, 2001 7:17 pm Subject: Re: c++/3524: Source can not be comiled using option -gdwarf > Synopsis: Source can not be comiled using option -gdwarf > > State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed > State-Changed-By: rodrigc > State-Changed-When: Fri Dec 14 11:17:23 2001 > State-Changed-Why: > Reproduced in gcc 3.1 and gcc 3.0 branch. > > Is using -gdwarf-2 an acceptable workaround? > > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit- > trail&pr=3524&database=gcc ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Craig Rodrigues http://www.gis.net/~craigr rodrigc@mediaone.net