http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com> 2012-05-07 15:00:01 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Would > > DW_TAG_structure_type > DW_AT_declaration > DW_AT_signature <sig8> > > be better? I also think GDB read_structure_type should cope with it right. > I suppose strictly speaking we need a DW_AT_name there, too...I'll > see about going in that direction instead. As GDB should not mind maybe we could propose DWARF extension DW_AT_specification -> DW_AT_specification or DW_AT_signature in the paragraph: Structure, union and class entries containing the DW_AT_specification attribute do not need to duplicate information provided by the declaration entry referenced by the specification attribute. In particular, such entries do not need to contain an attribute for the name of the structure, class or union they represent if such information is already provided in the declaration.
