This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] [1/5] Use DWARF-2 DW_AT_artificial information
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 05:46:35PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > There are two things which gcc 3.x's DWARF-2 support marks as artificial:
> > - arguments (to constructors only?)
> > - methods provided by the compiler (any of operator=, copy constructor,
> > default constructor, virtual thunks).
> > In particular we do not want to print virtual thunks, and I don't see any
> > reason to preserve printing operator= et al. if we don't have to (and if the
> > user didn't provide them himself).
> > This patch is the first in a series of five to add support for both of these
> > things. It lays the groundwork for identifying artificial method arguments.
> > The only interesting bit is removing an obsolete use of TYPE_FIELD_BITPOS -
> > at one point, TYPE_FIELD_BITPOS on a function's argument was an index into
> > the list of arguments. We never used this anywhere and only the HP readers
> > set it. I delete it so that I can re-use that space.
> Have you tested on hpux? It doesn't seem like it should have an effect,
No. I would love to if someone on this list could get me an HP/UX
account - especially one with the HP C++ compiler installed!
> > I have tested the patches all together, but not individually; I'll commit
> > them separately when approved, but I'm going to wait until they've all been
> > approved. They should work on their own, though.
> I think this is a bit dangerous assumption, do they compile on their own?
> > OK to commit this one?
> Looks ok to me. This is a fairly self-contained patch. I would think
> you can check this in, for start, while I look at the rest of the
> series. It should have no visible effect on GDB's behavior, right?
It certainly should have no effect. I haven't compiled them on their
own - I would before committing certainly - just eyeballed them.
I'll test and commit this along with any others approved by the time I
get a chance to test - tomorrow, probably. The type system doesn't
have an explicit maintainer, so I assume that you can approve it.
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer