This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA/DWARF2] Fallback unknown language to C
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at gnat dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:25:11 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFA/DWARF2] Fallback unknown language to C
- References: <20030312014415.GE958@gnat.com> <20030312145855.GA2699@nevyn.them.org> <email@example.com>
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 05:22:11PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:44:15PM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > > I am hearing the first rumors of 5.4, I think it would be nice to have
> > > the following change in. It's a followup on a remark made in this
> > > message:
> > >
> > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2003-02/msg00533.html
> > >
> > > (GDB does not work very well when the language is unknown)
> > >
> > > 2003-03-11 J. Brobecker <brobecker at gnat dot com>
> > >
> > > * dwarf2read.c (set_cu_language): Fall the language back to C
> > > if it is unsupported.
> > >
> > > Ok to commit?
> > I agree with the remark, but not the method. Does anyone see an
> > advantage to the unk_* methods calling error() instead of silently
> > defaulting to the C versions? That seems more appropriate to me.
> I don't like too much the idea of making the unk_lang functions
> default silently to C. These functions, in my mind, also serve as a
> kind of error checking in case the language settings get screwed up
> during debugging. Maybe the solution is to provide a
> 'partial_language' set of functions which do the bare minimum.
> The thing I missed from the various postings was a real reason of why
> the behavior changed. I guess that for stabs we didn't detect any of
> these languages at all and we defaulted to C from
Yeah, I think that's what was happening. If you prefer Joel's method
I certainly don't object.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer