From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id DD1003849AC6; Thu, 16 May 2024 10:29:12 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DD1003849AC6 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1715855352; bh=ePDUT6INmo905A08F1L16DBU+nPRYndt/td1SvSQbUk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=YHGD+Fr3kyzE+p80AjgkGjinA8jGjs9hsYcLkgupdhphv9b0JOk0N7AkiKvOOoFPM cl5HBKsWnPgyvilQ7dGA0xGThSwD1SPvveX60wjzy5dC+N9Bb7HnuaaebwENO3I/GZ 4Kxn3oPUuJb60wtgbz/tuaegpruCfuxT7+etOuLc= From: "vries at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug macros/29034] Can't print macros defined on the command-line with binaries built with clang Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 10:29:12 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb X-Bugzilla-Component: macros X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: vries at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D29034 Tom de Vries changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Andrew Burgess from comment #3) > Given we now have a work around for this issue in GDB, could we close this > bug? AFAIU, what remains to be done is to wait for lldb to fix this issue, and to limit the workaround to the broken versions. I'm not sure if that is enough reason to keep this PR open. The issue is already documented in the code like this: ... /* Clang, until the current version, misplaces some macro=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 definitions - such as ones defined in the command line,=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20 putting them after the last DW_MACRO_end_file instead of= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20 before the first DW_MACRO_start_file. Since at the time= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20 of writing there is no clang version with this bug fixed,= =20=20=20=20=20=20 we check for any clang producer. This should be changed= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20 to producer_is_clang_lt_XX when possible. */ ... I propose to close the PR. If we really want a PR open for this, we could = file a spin-off one, with for instance a tag in the subject "blocked on llvm" or some such. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=