On 09/26/14 01:03, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Are there standards for other languages that DWARF could refer to when
producers have to turn an order insensitive qualifier set in an ordered
list to express them with DWARF type modifier tags?
DWARF does not reference language standards, since it is int
On 09/26/14 00:43, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-25 at 11:04 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
A DWARF producer is free to generate DWARF in any fashion which
accurately describes the source and compilation process. If you want
to adopt a 'const' before 'volatile' convention (alphabetical) y
Hi John,
On Thu, 2014-09-25 at 14:58 -0400, John DelSignore wrote:
> IMHO, the compiler should be picking a canonical order for the
> qualifiers in the DWARF, just like it does for name mangling:
>
> % cat xxx.cxx
> void fpcvi(const volatile int*){}
> void fpvci(volatile const int*){}
> % g++ -g
On Thu, 2014-09-25 at 11:04 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 09/25/14 08:18, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > This came up on the gcc list when extending the number of DWARF type
> > qualifier modifiers that are handled. But the issue can be shown with
> > just const and volatile.
> >
> > The issue is that
