wrote on 2012/09/17
05:21:44 PM:
> From: John DelSignore
> To: Cary Coutant
> Cc: Tommy Hoffner/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "dwarf-
> disc...@lists.dwarfstd.org"
> Date: 2012/09/17 05:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] Resend Encoding large constant values
>
Cheers, John D.
Cary Coutant wrote:
> Sorry, forgot to reply-all...
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Cary Coutant
> Date: Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] Resend Encoding large constant values
> To: Tommy Hoffner
>
>
Sorry, forgot to reply-all...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Cary Coutant
Date: Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] Resend Encoding large constant values
To: Tommy Hoffner
> Giving me a 16 byte conhstant. My attempt on encoding this was
>
>
> Other debug formats that I've seen represented large constant values by
> encoding the constant value a sequence of bytes, in the target platform's
> byte order. The number of bytes in the constant value is (at least) as long
> as the length of the type of the named constant. This is very conv
Sounds like time to submit a proposal.
On 09/17/2012 12:42 PM, John DelSignore wrote:
In Fortran if you declare a variable as a "parameter", the compiler creates a
named constant. The language allows named constants of any intrinsic type, that is, a
numeric (integer, real, or complex) value, a
In Fortran if you declare a variable as a "parameter", the compiler creates a
named constant. The language allows named constants of any intrinsic type, that
is, a numeric (integer, real, or complex) value, a character value (including
strings), or a logical value. Given that strings are allowed
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 05:39:38PM +, Bishop, John E wrote:
> > Maybe DWARF needs a DW_FORM_data16.
>
> Rather than one-plus to get data16 (soon we'd need data32, etc), I think
> you should use DW_FORM_block1. If consumers make invalid assumptions, we
> shouldn't change DWARF to compensate fo
> Maybe DWARF needs a DW_FORM_data16.
Rather than one-plus to get data16 (soon we'd need data32, etc), I think you
should use DW_FORM_block1. If consumers make invalid assumptions, we shouldn't
change DWARF to compensate for that.
I first thought of suggesting that we add words to the effect t
On 09/16/2012 03:36 PM, Tommy Hoffner wrote:
Seems like the mailer doesn't approve of Lotus Notes email
The standard way of encoding a constant value seems to be something like:
<2>< 196> DW_TAG_constant
DW_AT_name rans2
DW_AT_const_value 16
DW_AT_decl_file 1
DW_AT_decl_line 0
DW_AT_type <143>
Seems like the mailer doesn't approve of Lotus Notes email
The standard way of encoding a constant value seems to be something like:
<2>< 196> DW_TAG_constant
DW_AT_name rans2
DW_AT_const_value 16
DW_AT_decl_file
Seems like the mailing list cut my first attempt in half.
The standard way of encoding a constant value seems to be something like:
<2>< 196> DW_TAG_constant
DW_AT_name rans2
DW_AT_const_value 16
DW_AT_decl_file
11 matches
Mail list logo
