http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-07 14:47:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > Yes; I wanted to know first if this is an intended change. It was. > FYI it does not seem to be DWARF compliant: > The typedef entry has a DW_AT_name attribute whose value is a > null-terminated > string containing the name of the typedef as it appears in the source > program. Yes, I agree, but it seemed in informal testing that GDB didn't mind; I apologize for not running the testsuite. Would DW_TAG_structure_type DW_AT_declaration DW_AT_signature <sig8> be better? I suppose strictly speaking we need a DW_AT_name there, too...I'll see about going in that direction instead.
