From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29346 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2007 22:35:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 29332 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2007 22:35:41 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:35:35 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823C098052; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:35:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A7BC98022; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:35:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J3J80-00039W-Hw; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:35:32 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Doug Kwan =?utf-8?B?KOmXnOaMr+W+tyk=?= Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Adding new dwarf encoding formats for complex integers Message-ID: <20071214223532.GA11966@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Doug Kwan =?utf-8?B?KOmXnOaMr+W+tyk=?= , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sourceware.org References: <498552560712141430q75098aaembcda8db5c6edd8fb@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <498552560712141430q75098aaembcda8db5c6edd8fb@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00094.txt.bz2 On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 02:30:36PM -0800, Doug Kwan (關振德) wrote: > Is there anything I need to do in addition to changing gcc? Are > there people I should talk to? And what documentation should be > updated? Currently gdb (I checked 6.7) does not support complex > integer properly. So it needs to be changed anyway. The DWARF standard has its own mailing list and working group. I recommend contacting them first, to see if there's interest in a general definition. If you just want to add it to the GNU tools, then lo_user seems like the best place to put it - it's a vendor extension - so I don't see the problem. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery