Re: Question concerning comment in symtab.h

[Paul Hilfinger <hilfingr at gnat dot com>]

   Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 00:20:22 -0400 (EDT)
   From: Daniel Berlin <dan@www.cgsoftware.com>

>   > Right, and that's our intention.   So, during symbol reading, one is now
>   > supposed to reference gcc_compile_flag directly (and not reference it at
>   > all elsewhere)?
>   You mean proceessing_gcc_compilation. This is what BLOCK_GCC_COMPILED gets
>   set to.

Actually, I *did* mean gcc_compile_flag, which is what BLOCK_GCC_COMPILED 
is, but now I understand what you mean.  

>   It only matters for STABS, anyway. For DWARF2, it's always set to 2, and
>   i'm not sure about mdebug and xcoff.

I'm glad I brought this thread up, because now it's clear that I'm confused.
If BLOCK_GCC_COMPILED is always 2 for DWARF2, then the current comments imply
that only GCC produces DWARF2 (because a native compiler is supposed to set
gcc_compile_flag, and thus BLOCK_GCC_COMPILED to 0).  Is that true?  

>   Do all the hacks necessary in the symbol readers, unless it's literally
>   impossible.
>   Heck, i'd rather see someone have to add a field to the type structure to
>   or symbol structure to handle a difference, then introduce hacks into
>   hand_function_call or something.

I could just wait for the patch, but out of curiosity, how are you now
going to handle the last argument of using_struct_return?


P. Hilfinger