This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Archer project.
Re: "long" vs. "long int" (what a mess!)
- From: Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, archer at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:38:16 -0800
- Subject: Re: "long" vs. "long int" (what a mess!)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta;t=1226079500; bh=AJC3dSTKRXDb6+pWBtjEVbJEsKs=;h=DomainKey-Signature:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date: Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=FTZADt9/3mHEPEn3n7wV//jC13uZwsaXWerYL22LsYTnx0aYw1haizorkkqD13jfDsqy6XVRNJk15xSgSFBh2Q==
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns;h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;b=UrLyZWnwPVDMYr7rlBGqCiSwgO+Nyvu+lwpz1gyv3tnn7ABCKZiKZTR0rStvYEMgBlcwbN3UcXWgCf2Kv9Bg2w==
- References: <20081107025507.5BB8E3A6B0D@localhost> <20081107143730.GA9939@caradoc.them.org> <email@example.com> <20081107173439.GA20910@caradoc.them.org>
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 10:21:57AM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> It seems like in the long term it would be useful to have GCC emit
>> canonicalized names and then set a flag so that the gdb dwarf reader
>> could skip the canonicalization step. Or am I missing something?
> This sounds awfully fragile, because it means that GCC and GDB must be
> completely in sync about the meaning of canonicalization at all times.
We can have GCC emit a "canonicalization version" instead of a
binary flag. If version matches that of GDB, they are in sync;
if it does not, GDB re-canonicalizes.