This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug debug/55059] [4.8 Regression] DWARF missing concrete class definition
- From: "tromey at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:29:28 +0000
- Subject: [Bug debug/55059] [4.8 Regression] DWARF missing concrete class definition
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-55059-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55059
--- Comment #3 from Tom Tromey <tromey at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-01-03 19:29:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> So, where do we stand with this? Can GDB be changed to cope with this, or do
> you think it isn't valid DWARF?
It seems strange at least.
I don't have chapter and verse against it though.
If we change gdb to cope with this, I think the effect will be to undo what
the patches here were attempting to accomplish.
That would be fine by me -- but in that case, why not just revert
gcc to the status quo ante, preserving compatibility with existing
versions of gdb?