https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
r212555 addresses this issue for certain std::lib types, but not for the
general case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill 2013-03-17
02:33:59 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sun Mar 17 02:33:50 2013
New Revision: 196723
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196723
Log:
PR debug/49090
* dwarf2out.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
--- Comment #10 from Tom Tromey 2013-02-01 21:44:15
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Does it make sense to you to use DW_AT_default_value as a flag here?
That would be fine by me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2013-02-01
19:45:51 UTC ---
Does it make sense to you to use DW_AT_default_value as a flag here?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
--- Comment #7 from Tom Tromey 2013-02-01 18:18:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> What do you think about G++ (also) switching to emitting K for DW_AT_name
> in this case? Would that break GDB type compatibility with other translation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2013-02-01
17:58:34 UTC ---
What do you think about G++ (also) switching to emitting K for DW_AT_name
in this case? Would that break GDB type compatibility with other translation
units that had K?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
--- Comment #5 from Tom Tromey 2013-01-31 20:25:54
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > > Note that we don't currently generate those tags for uninstantiated types.
> > I don't think I understand this last comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2013-01-31
20:18:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > Note that we don't currently generate those tags for uninstantiated types.
> I don't think I understand this last comment.
I mean that if we only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
--- Comment #3 from Tom Tromey 2013-01-31 20:11:36
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Is GDB actually using the DW_TAG_template_*_param to generate the name of a
> type, or just using the pretty name generated by GCC for DW_AT_name?
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49090
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
13 matches
Mail list logo
