| Message ID | 1357647854-27196-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Ping? Thank you! On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 07:24:14AM -0500, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Hello, > > I just noticed that part of the proposal we made for... > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DW_AT_GNAT_descriptive_type > > ... got missed in the patch that got checked in: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00099.html > > In particular, we're missing the second part, where we are > expected to generate a DW_AT_use_GNAT_descriptive_type flag > in the CU in order to tell the consumers that we are providing > the descriptive type. > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * dwarf2out.c (gen_compile_unit_die): Add > DW_AT_use_GNAT_descriptive_type attribute for Ada units. > > Tested on x86_64-linux, no regression. I also tested against > the GDB testsuite, before and after, and no regression. This > is expected, since GDB currently does not look for this attribute > (but I would like it to). > > OK to apply for HEAD and 4.7? > > Thanks, > -- > Joel > > --- > gcc/dwarf2out.c | 4 ++++ > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/dwarf2out.c b/gcc/dwarf2out.c > index a865250..8117ce9 100644 > --- a/gcc/dwarf2out.c > +++ b/gcc/dwarf2out.c > @@ -18940,6 +18940,10 @@ gen_compile_unit_die (const char *filename) > /* The default DW_ID_case_sensitive doesn't need to be specified. */ > break; > } > + > + if (language == DW_LANG_Ada95) > + add_AT_flag (die, DW_AT_use_GNAT_descriptive_type, 1); > + > return die; > } > > -- > 1.7.0.4
Hello, I was hoping someone would kindly review this patch? It is an important part for debugging Ada code, helping with performance. Thank you! On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 07:24:14AM -0500, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Hello, > > I just noticed that part of the proposal we made for... > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DW_AT_GNAT_descriptive_type > > ... got missed in the patch that got checked in: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00099.html > > In particular, we're missing the second part, where we are > expected to generate a DW_AT_use_GNAT_descriptive_type flag > in the CU in order to tell the consumers that we are providing > the descriptive type. > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * dwarf2out.c (gen_compile_unit_die): Add > DW_AT_use_GNAT_descriptive_type attribute for Ada units. > > Tested on x86_64-linux, no regression. I also tested against > the GDB testsuite, before and after, and no regression. This > is expected, since GDB currently does not look for this attribute > (but I would like it to). > > OK to apply for HEAD and 4.7? > > Thanks, > -- > Joel > > --- > gcc/dwarf2out.c | 4 ++++ > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/dwarf2out.c b/gcc/dwarf2out.c > index a865250..8117ce9 100644 > --- a/gcc/dwarf2out.c > +++ b/gcc/dwarf2out.c > @@ -18940,6 +18940,10 @@ gen_compile_unit_die (const char *filename) > /* The default DW_ID_case_sensitive doesn't need to be specified. */ > break; > } > + > + if (language == DW_LANG_Ada95) > + add_AT_flag (die, DW_AT_use_GNAT_descriptive_type, 1); > + > return die; > } > > -- > 1.7.0.4
diff --git a/gcc/dwarf2out.c b/gcc/dwarf2out.c index a865250..8117ce9 100644 --- a/gcc/dwarf2out.c +++ b/gcc/dwarf2out.c @@ -18940,6 +18940,10 @@ gen_compile_unit_die (const char *filename) /* The default DW_ID_case_sensitive doesn't need to be specified. */ break; } + + if (language == DW_LANG_Ada95) + add_AT_flag (die, DW_AT_use_GNAT_descriptive_type, 1); + return die; }
Hello, I just noticed that part of the proposal we made for... http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DW_AT_GNAT_descriptive_type ... got missed in the patch that got checked in: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00099.html In particular, we're missing the second part, where we are expected to generate a DW_AT_use_GNAT_descriptive_type flag in the CU in order to tell the consumers that we are providing the descriptive type. gcc/ChangeLog: * dwarf2out.c (gen_compile_unit_die): Add DW_AT_use_GNAT_descriptive_type attribute for Ada units. Tested on x86_64-linux, no regression. I also tested against the GDB testsuite, before and after, and no regression. This is expected, since GDB currently does not look for this attribute (but I would like it to). OK to apply for HEAD and 4.7? Thanks,