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

[Sebastian Huber]

On 28/11/14 12:19, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> 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".

I would simply use "C11".

-- 
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH

Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax     : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail  : sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de
PGP     : Public key available on request.

Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.