[PATCH] dwarf.c handle new DWARFv5 C11, C++11 and C++14 DW_LANG constants.

[Mark Wielaard]

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".