Re: how to support C type qualifiers applied to arrays?

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 02:42:12PM -0800, Gary Funck wrote:
> Q: Is GCC generating an inaccurate DWARF 2 representation
> to describe a qualified array type, or is GDB not
> interpreting the DWARF 2 information correctly?

I will defer to experts on this but I believe GCC is incorrect.

In C there is no such thing as a "qualified array type".  The array has
an element type (which can be c-v qualified) and a bound, and no
qualifiers of its own.  But you can say "int x[const 1]".  You can't
define variables of this type, but you can use them in function
declarations.  I believe it means roughly "int *const x" within the
function; normally you can write:

int f(int x[1])
{ 
  x[0] = 1;
  x++;
  return 0;
}

But this is invalid:

int f(int x[const 1])
{ 
  x[0] = 1;
  x++;
  return 0;
}

So, by stuffing qualifiers on the outside, we lose the ability to
present that.  But GCC emits debug info for those as int f(int *)
and int f(int * const) respectively, so it's irrelevant in practice.
We can assume the qualifiers belonged to the element type in GDB.

> We see that make_cv_type() is called to qualify 'base_type' as "const".
> Make_cv_type() does this by setting a flag bit in the 'instance_flags'
> field of base_type.  In our example above, 'base_type' is an array type.

My first recommendation would be to have make_cv_type create a new
array type, with the qualified element type.  However, doing this
without being excessively wasteful might require care - you couldn't
reuse main_type since the qualified array could not share main_type.
But the waste is acceptably small.

The alternative would be to have a function called to get the base type
of an array which did appropriate qualification at that point.  The
easiest way to do it might be to make TYPE_TARGET_TYPE into an
appropriate function.  Better than auditing the 465 or so calls.

The first is probably better.  It should be done in gdbtypes.c, not
in the DWARF reader specifically.

I see that these are roughly the same two possibilities you offered :-)
I would do it at a different level than expression evaluation, though,
as you can see above, if I took the second option.


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery