This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [very old] Re: dwarf2 cleanup
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- To: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>,Dan Nicolaescu <dann at godzilla dot ICS dot UCI dot EDU>,binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 21 Jun 2002 14:20:27 -0500
- Subject: Re: [very old] Re: dwarf2 cleanup
- References: <200102151617.aa17403@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu><npbsa5yg7c.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com><15634.29938.777456.889449@localhost.redhat.com>
Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com> writes:
> Jim Blandy writes:
> > The gdb/dwarf2read.c portion of this change is approved. I'm sorry I
> > waited 16 months to review this straightforward change.
> >
> > The include/elf/dwarf2 stuff is shared with binutils (BFD uses it), so
> > I think we need their stamp, as well.
>
> A couple of things. dwarf2.h has changed since the time this patch was
> posted. So this patch would need to be updated. I've also noticed that
> the corresponding changes to gcc/dwarf2.h, etc. were never committed.
> Rereading the old gcc-patches thread, there were also problems with the
> use of '#' instead of STRINGX.
The GCC patches were waiting on approval for the corresponding GDB
patches, to avoid divergence.
The stringification issues had been resolved, I thought; the last
message in the thread is from Kaveh R. Ghazi, and says:
This works:
> #define FOO(x) STRINGIFY(x)
> FOO(bar)
You get "bar", which is I think what Dan did.
> There are 2 versions of dwarf2.h, which could be unified. I've heard
> 'rumours' that this was going to eventually happen, i.e. gcc would
> drop its own version and just use the include/elf one. Jason? Would
> this be feasible?
I hope so! That confused me for a bit when I ran into it.