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 correctly on AMD64
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery 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, 9 Mar 2004 23:21:05 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Classify non-POD struct types more or less correctly on AMD64
- 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> <404E8DB7.1070406@codesourcery.com>
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:38:31PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 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? :-)
Amen.
> >I'm guessing that this is what the x86-64 ABI was referring to, rather
> >than the actual term POD.
>
> Yes.
OK, thanks. I don't believe there is an appropriate existing tag for
this, so if we get sufficiently fed up with trying to guess, we'll have
to propose one :)
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer