This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch+8.0] DWARF-5 Fix DW_FORM_implicit_const
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:08:01 +0100
- Subject: Re: [patch+8.0] DWARF-5 Fix DW_FORM_implicit_const
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=palves at redhat dot com
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 5605183F40
- References: <20170622203308.GA23353@host1.jankratochvil.net>
Hi Jan,
On 06/22/2017 09:33 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>
> the other possibility is to patch attr_form_is_constant() and
> dwarf2_get_attr_constant_value(), I do not see what is better.
Wouldn't that be more direct and to the point? If I'm imagining
that version of the patch correctly, that'd seem like a
more obvious choice to me. The proposed version looks like is
frobbing the form so that DW_FORM_sdata so that those two other
functions end up doing the right thing as side effect. Right?
Is there some advantage to doing it the sdata way? It kind of feels
like a hack, but maybe I'm missing something.
>
> It fixes for example:
> FAIL: gdb.base/constvars.exp: ptype logical
>
> for -gdwarf-4 vs. -gdwarf-5.
>
Thanks,
Pedro Alves