This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Classify non-POD struct types more or less correctlyon AMD64
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Cc: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at chello dot nl>, jh at suse dot cz, aj at suse dot de, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 19:38:31 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Classify non-POD struct types more or less correctlyon AMD64
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <200401101800.i0AI0Zm6026623@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <20040110183622.GA8108@nevyn.them.org> <200401101858.i0AIwdhk032901@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <20040111041009.GA15714@nevyn.them.org> <200401111237.i0BCbVPL010349@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <20040309153937.GA27951@nevyn.them.org>
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I don't know if this sort of information should be in the dwarf2
information somehow. It definitely is in the C++ GNU v3 ABI:
http://www.codesourcery.com/cxx-abi/abi.html#calls
I think it should definitely be encoded in DWARF2. (I don't know where;
I just think it's a mistake for the debugger to be trying to figure this
out for itself. The rules are pretty subtle, and may be different from
architecture to architecture, or compiler release to compiler release,
even, if we make an intentional change.)
For stabs, you're probably hosed -- but then again, aren't you just
generally hosed with stabs? :-)
I'm guessing that this is what the x86-64 ABI was referring to, rather
than the actual term POD.
Yes.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com