Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] C++14 and C++03 (vs C++98)
Looks like Tom's reply never made the dwarf mailinglist. So here it is to make the archive on this issue complete. On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 09:02 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote: > Michael> Issue 120628.1 mentions a need to distinguish between C++03 and other > Michael> versions of C++. If you believe that DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_03 is not > Michael> necessary, I suggest that you discuss this with the submitter, Tom > Michael> Tromey, to understand why he believes that this is required. > > Mark & I discussed it and I couldn't remember any reason that this was > needed. > > Tom ___ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] C++14 and C++03 (vs C++98)
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:23:21AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Looks like Tom's reply never made the dwarf mailinglist. > So here it is to make the archive on this issue complete. > > On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 09:02 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote: > > Michael> Issue 120628.1 mentions a need to distinguish between C++03 and > > other > > Michael> versions of C++. If you believe that DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_03 is not > > Michael> necessary, I suggest that you discuss this with the submitter, Tom > > Michael> Tromey, to understand why he believes that this is required. > > > > Mark & I discussed it and I couldn't remember any reason that this was > > needed. I have also submitted an Issue for Fortran 2003 and 2008 lacking DW_LANG_* codes. So, if DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_03 is being removed, perhaps the assigned code could be reused for one of those (or left unassigned). Jakub ___ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] C++14 and C++03 (vs C++98)
(Sorry top posting) What about new C++11 keywords? Would a debugger cli interpreter be helped by this datum in case the user enters some of these keywords? (I can bring the list, only "noexcept" comes from the top of my mind currently) -Original Message- From: Mark Wielaard Sender: "Dwarf-Discuss" Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 11:23:21 To: Subject: Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] C++14 and C++03 (vs C++98) Looks like Tom's reply never made the dwarf mailinglist. So here it is to make the archive on this issue complete. On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 09:02 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote: > Michael> Issue 120628.1 mentions a need to distinguish between C++03 and other > Michael> versions of C++. If you believe that DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_03 is not > Michael> necessary, I suggest that you discuss this with the submitter, Tom > Michael> Tromey, to understand why he believes that this is required. > > Mark & I discussed it and I couldn't remember any reason that this was > needed. > > Tom ___ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org ___ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] C++14 and C++03 (vs C++98)
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 13:22 +, Daniel Gutson wrote: > What about new C++11 keywords? Would a debugger cli interpreter be > helped by this datum in case the user enters some of these keywords? Yes, that is the intention. If there are different language variants that have different keywords or when certain DWARF constructs can be interpreted differently depending on the version used in the source. For C++11 there certainly is a usage. But C++03 does not change the language in any way from C++98 represented by DW_LANG_c_plus_plus. It really isn't a different language variant, just some library extensions (and the library will be described by existing DWARF constructs already). So the question is whether the proposed DW_LANG_c_plus_plus_03 constant is actually needed, and if adopted by DWARFv5, how a producer and consumer need to interpret it. Cheers, Mark ___ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] C++14 and C++03 (vs C++98)
On 11/26/14 02:23, Mark Wielaard wrote: Looks like Tom's reply never made the dwarf mailinglist. So here it is to make the archive on this issue complete. On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 09:02 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote: Michael> Issue 120628.1 mentions a need to distinguish between C++03 and other Michael> versions of C++. If you believe that DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_03 is not Michael> necessary, I suggest that you discuss this with the submitter, Tom Michael> Tromey, to understand why he believes that this is required. Mark & I discussed it and I couldn't remember any reason that this was needed. Tom Please submit a comment to remove the language code: http://dwarfstd.org/Comment.php -- Michael Eagerea...@eagercon.com 1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077 ___ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] C++14 and C++03 (vs C++98)
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 13:22 +, Daniel Gutson wrote: >> What about new C++11 keywords? Would a debugger cli interpreter be >> helped by this datum in case the user enters some of these keywords? > > Yes, that is the intention. If there are different language variants > that have different keywords or when certain DWARF constructs can be > interpreted differently depending on the version used in the source. For > C++11 there certainly is a usage. > > But C++03 does not change the language in any way from C++98 represented Yes, IIRC it's a corrigendum actually. I got misled by the subject of the email :) sorry. > by DW_LANG_c_plus_plus. It really isn't a different language variant, > just some library extensions (and the library will be described by > existing DWARF constructs already). So the question is whether the > proposed DW_LANG_c_plus_plus_03 constant is actually needed, and if > adopted by DWARFv5, how a producer and consumer need to interpret it. > > Cheers, > > Mark -- Daniel F. Gutson Chief Engineering Officer, SPD San Lorenzo 47, 3rd Floor, Office 5 Córdoba, Argentina Phone: +54 351 4217888 / +54 351 4218211 Skype:dgutson LinkedIn: http://ar.linkedin.com/in/danielgutson ___ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
