From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14159 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2003 17:16:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14149 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2003 17:16:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.lss.emc.com) (168.159.2.8) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Apr 2003 17:16:25 -0000 Received: from emc.com (lul1179.lss.emc.com [168.159.33.179]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-2.2.5/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h3GHGLN00754; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:16:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200304161716.h3GHGLN00754@mailhub.lss.emc.com> To: Daniel Berlin cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: stabs and macro information In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:47:17 EDT." <159A1846-702B-11D7-83B7-000393575BCC@dberlin.org> References: <159A1846-702B-11D7-83B7-000393575BCC@dberlin.org> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:16:00 -0000 From: David Taylor X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00165.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:47:17 -0400 > From: Daniel Berlin > > On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 11:58 AM, David Taylor wrote: > > > The GCC side of things took less than a day to implement; I'm hoping > > to get started on the GDB side soon. > > > I didn't see it on the GCC list. Was it submitted? > I ask because ... Not yet. The copyright assignment paperwork for EMC's changes to GCC hasn't been approved/signed yet by management. I expect it will be approved/signed, but it hasn't been yet. [I feel that it is inappropriate to post changes if they are not assigned (unless they are small enough to not need an assignment). However, I do feel it is appropriate to discuss how to do it / what to name things / etc. as the changes are likely to be assigned.] Also, since the GDB part isn't done yet, the GCC part isn't particularly useful as yet. [NOTE: GDB copyright assignment papers *have* been signed.] > > One question I have is what stabs types to use -- tentatively I'm > > using: > > > > /* GNU extension. Macro define. */ > > __define_stab(N_MAC_DEFINE, 0x36, "MAC_DEFINE") > > > /* GNU extension. Macro undefine. */ > > __define_stab(N_MAC_UNDEF, 0x3a, "MAC_UNDEF") > > > Unless these are really generated by GCC, they aren't GNU extensions, > they are EMC extensions. You are correct that they are currently EMC extensions. After the change gets submitted, if it is accepted, then it will be a GNU extension. > > as it appears (based on gcc/stab.def, include/aout/stab.def, and > > gdb/doc/stabs.texinfo) that 0x36 and 0x3a are available. > > > > Is anyone aware of any other uses of stab types 0x36 and 0x3a -- > > i.e. is anyone aware of uses that might conflict? > > > You might want to look at what Sun's tools do. > Do they generate STABS anymore, and if so, see if they have extensions > that conflict here. I don't currently have access to Sun's tools. Also, Sun used to be (might still be for all I know) rather secretive about their stabs extensions. Does Sun document their stabs stuff in a publicly accessible document? I don't know if Sun's tools still generate stabs or not. > > Thanks. > > > > David > > > > p.s. shouldn't include/aout/stab.def and gcc/stab.def be merged? > > Possibly. > I would imagine that nobody seriously cares about *extending* STABS > anymore, so nobody has had any motivation to do anything about it. > > --Dan Later, David