This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: stabs and macro information
- From: David Taylor <dtaylor at emc dot com>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:16:20 -0400
- Subject: Re: stabs and macro information
- References: <159A1846-702B-11D7-83B7-000393575BCC@dberlin.org>
> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:47:17 -0400
> From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
> On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 11:58 AM, David Taylor wrote:
> > The GCC side of things took less than a day to implement; I'm hoping
> > to get started on the GDB side soon.
> I didn't see it on the GCC list. Was it submitted?
> I ask because ...
Not yet. The copyright assignment paperwork for EMC's changes to GCC
hasn't been approved/signed yet by management. I expect it will be
approved/signed, but it hasn't been yet.
[I feel that it is inappropriate to post changes if they are not
assigned (unless they are small enough to not need an assignment).
However, I do feel it is appropriate to discuss how to do it / what to
name things / etc. as the changes are likely to be assigned.]
Also, since the GDB part isn't done yet, the GCC part isn't
particularly useful as yet.
[NOTE: GDB copyright assignment papers *have* been signed.]
> > One question I have is what stabs types to use -- tentatively I'm
> > using:
> > /* GNU extension. Macro define. */
> > __define_stab(N_MAC_DEFINE, 0x36, "MAC_DEFINE")
> > /* GNU extension. Macro undefine. */
> > __define_stab(N_MAC_UNDEF, 0x3a, "MAC_UNDEF")
> Unless these are really generated by GCC, they aren't GNU extensions,
> they are EMC extensions.
You are correct that they are currently EMC extensions. After the
change gets submitted, if it is accepted, then it will be a GNU
> > as it appears (based on gcc/stab.def, include/aout/stab.def, and
> > gdb/doc/stabs.texinfo) that 0x36 and 0x3a are available.
> > Is anyone aware of any other uses of stab types 0x36 and 0x3a --
> > i.e. is anyone aware of uses that might conflict?
> You might want to look at what Sun's tools do.
> Do they generate STABS anymore, and if so, see if they have extensions
> that conflict here.
I don't currently have access to Sun's tools. Also, Sun used to be
(might still be for all I know) rather secretive about their stabs
extensions. Does Sun document their stabs stuff in a publicly
I don't know if Sun's tools still generate stabs or not.
> > Thanks.
> > David
> > p.s. shouldn't include/aout/stab.def and gcc/stab.def be merged?
> I would imagine that nobody seriously cares about *extending* STABS
> anymore, so nobody has had any motivation to do anything about it.