Mark Mitchell writes:
> And, in any case, if it's a regression it's OK with me.
Thanks. I have committed the patch back into 4.6.
--
Dodji
On 3/17/2011 4:08 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Yesterday after discussing this on IRC, Jakub expressed his personal
> opinion by saying the patch could go in 4.6. I mistakenly took it as a
> formal approval from the RMs and I committed it. I should have waited
> for an approval by email.
You don
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Yesterday after discussing this on IRC, Jakub expressed his personal
> opinion by saying the patch could go in 4.6. I mistakenly took it as a
> formal approval from the RMs and I committed it. I should have waited
> for an approval by email. So I hav
Yesterday after discussing this on IRC, Jakub expressed his personal
opinion by saying the patch could go in 4.6. I mistakenly took it as a
formal approval from the RMs and I committed it. I should have waited
for an approval by email. So I have just reverted the patch from 4.6
now. Sorry for t
On 3/16/2011 1:04 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Would the RMs (in CC) object to this patch going into 4.6?
What would be the justification for that? The bar is pretty high on
putting a patch onto a release branch.
I don't see any evidence that this is a regression, and a bug that
affects debuggin
Jason Merrill writes:
> This patch is OK.
Thank you.
Would the RMs (in CC) object to this patch going into 4.6?
> I also think it's a bug that the constructors of the anonymous struct
> have 't' in their names; they should also be anonymous with
> DW_AT_linkage_name.
I think this makes sense.
This patch is OK. I also think it's a bug that the constructors of the
anonymous struct have 't' in their names; they should also be anonymous
with DW_AT_linkage_name.
Jason
Tom Tromey writes:
> I would like to ask that it be considered for 4.6.
>
> IIRC, if this patch does not go in 4.6, then we have to write some
> special and ugly GDB code to work around the debuginfo generated by 4.6.
> I would much prefer it if there was no need to write this code.
I see. I wa
Tom> After a lot of discussion on irc, we came up with another idea: extend
Tom> this patch to add DW_AT_linkage_name == 't' to the anonymous
Tom> structure. This makes the DWARF remain a faithful representation of
Tom> the C++, but also makes it simple for debuginfo readers to understand
Tom> wha
that we can backport to 4.6 after its release.
--
Dodji
>From 5cc08083834604525a11e4e4b6de830734520f6e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dodji Seketeli
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:53:49 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] PR debug/47510
PR debug/47510
* gcc/dwarf2out.c (strip_na
10 matches
Mail list logo
