https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
--- Comment #10 from Tom Tromey ---
I have been looking at this again recently, for Ada, and now
I think perhaps the approach that GCC takes should be preferred.
At first I was thinking maybe the compiler could linearize
the members of the emitt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
--- Comment #9 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to Pierre-Marie de Rodat from comment #8)
> Understood, thank you for the notice! As we have to tweak the spec one way
> or another for Ada, I suggest indeed we keep the way things are implemented
> in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
--- Comment #8 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
Understood, thank you for the notice! As we have to tweak the spec one way or
another for Ada, I suggest indeed we keep the way things are implemented in GCC
today, waiting for the DWARF committee to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
--- Comment #7 from Tom Tromey ---
For Rust I ended up following the letter of the standard, so I'm going
to follow this in the gdb patches as well. That said, gdb can be adapted
to work with either approach, so it's not strictly necessary to ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
--- Comment #6 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
Just got a notification that it got assigned issue #180123.1:
http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=180123.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
--- Comment #5 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
I just submitted an Issue/Comment on dwarfstd.org, but unfortunately it is not
yet publicly visible (http://dwarfstd.org/Issues.php). Waiting for feedback
from there…
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
--- Comment #4 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #3)
> TBH this did not make sense to me, either, which is partly why I originally
> wrote my patch the "more natural" way -- then this got caught in review,
> see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
--- Comment #3 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to Pierre-Marie de Rodat from comment #2)
> Thinking more about it, the rule that the discriminant entry must be a child
> of the variant part entry sounds suspicious to me.
TBH this did not make sens
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
--- Comment #2 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
Thinking more about it, the rule that the discriminant entry must be a child of
the variant part entry sounds suspicious to me.
In the case of two variant parts, which are nested and depend on the sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83935
Pierre-Marie de Rodat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
11 matches
Mail list logo
