https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93988
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2020-03-02
Version|unknown |10.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I wonder if there is (or should be) sth like DW_ATE_unsupported ... using
DW_ATE_lo_user is indeed unfortunate but not wrong per-se. Adding
a DW_ATE_GNU_complex_int might be also possible (and support that from gdb).
So I'm not sure it's invalid DWARF. It's just colliding vendor extensions
(can gdb "switch" extensions if there are colliding ones? does gdb autodetect
vendors?)
The other DW_ATE_lo_user uses are to _avoid_ invalid dwarf. Using
DW_ATE_hi_user might be less prone to colliding with other vendor extensions
tho.
