[Bug c++/26525] DWARF5 class variables are not data members, DW_TAG_member, but DW_TAG_variable.

["tromey at sourceware dot org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26525

Tom Tromey <tromey at sourceware dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tromey at sourceware dot org

--- Comment #1 from Tom Tromey <tromey at sourceware dot org> ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #0)

> FAIL: gdb.base/ptype-offsets.exp: ptype/o static_member

The member isn't defined; this works:

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/ptype-offsets.cc
b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/ptype-offsets.cc
index ddb009f1ae5..b686c9bdc3a 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/ptype-offsets.cc
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/ptype-offsets.cc
@@ -185,6 +185,8 @@ struct static_member
   int abc;
 };

+static_member static_member::Empty;
+
 int
 main (int argc, char *argv[])
 {


> FAIL: gdb.cp/constexpr-field.exp: print y

This one is weird, the constexpr fields aren't described in the DWARF.
Maybe a test change is needed, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90526#c1

> FAIL: gdb.cp/m-static.exp: static const int initialized nowhere (print field)
> FAIL: gdb.cp/m-static.exp: ptype test4.nowhere
> FAIL: gdb.cp/m-static.exp: print test4.nowhere.nowhere
> FAIL: gdb.cp/m-static.exp: static const int initialized nowhere (whole
> struct)
> FAIL: gdb.cp/m-static.exp: static const int initialized in class definition
> FAIL: gdb.cp/m-static.exp: static const float initialized in class definition
> FAIL: gdb.cp/m-static.exp: info variable everywhere

The "nowhere" failures are because this member is declared but not defined,
and gdb expects it to be <optimized out>.  So arguably a compiler perhaps but
also just a weird test.

I didn't look at the rest.  I think the basic feature is probably fine and
we're just seeing a difference between the test suite's expectations and what
gcc has started doing in some corner cases.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.