On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 12:03 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 27/11/14 16:14, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 16:09 +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 26/11/14 17:24, Mark Wielaard wrote:
+++ b/binutils/dwarf.c
@@ -1935,6 +1935,9 @@ read_and_display_attr_value (unsigned long attribute,
case DW_LANG_Python: printf ("(Python)"); break;
/* DWARF 5 values. */
case DW_LANG_Go: printf ("(Go)"); break;
+ case DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_11: printf ("(C++11)"); break;
+ case DW_LANG_C11: printf ("(ANSI C11)"); break;
+ case DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_14: printf ("(C++14)"); break;
/* MIPS extension. */
case DW_LANG_Mips_Assembler: printf ("(MIPS assembler)"); break;
/* UPC extension. */
Out of curiosity why is this "ANSI C11" and not simply "C11" (like
"C++11") or "ISO C11"?
No particular reason, except to be consistent with the existing naming
used. DW_LANG_C89 was already "ANSI C" and DW_LANG_C_plus_plus was
already "C++".
As far as I know there is no ANSI C11, the standard is ISO/IEC 9899:2011.
What is you recommendation then? Currently we have DW_LANG_C89/"ANSI C",
DW_LANG_C/"non-ANSI C", DW_LANG_C99/"ANSI C99" and DW_LANG_C11/"ANSI
C11".