This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Proposal for merging scalar-storage-order branch into mainline
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>, Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 12:35:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: Proposal for merging scalar-storage-order branch into mainline
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <2354857 dot 0uXrE6NL1R at polaris> <1433771820 dot 4538 dot 379 dot camel at bordewijk dot wildebeest dot org> <1815334 dot 33LqHF3RXV at polaris> <20150609103305 dot GX10247 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 12:17:49PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> > How is this represented in DWARF?
>> This is not represented on the branch, because this cannot be done in pure
>> DWARF. DW_AT_endianity only applies to base types or stand-alone objects and
>> we would need it for DW_TAG_member (and even DW_TAG_array_type in Ada). But
>> this could easily be implemented once the representation is agreed on.
> DW_AT_endianity attribute is listed in DWARF4 for:
> Not really sure how to interpret it e.g. on DW_TAG_variable (or
> formal_parameter) if it has DW_TAG_reference_type type - does it talk
> about the endianity of what it refers to, or the reference itself, both?
> Anyway, the DWARF standard doesn't forbid using it on other kinds of DIEs
> and I think emitting it on DW_TAG_member would be natural.
> Not sure why you would want it on DW_TAG_array_type, the endianity for
> arrays should be specified on the element type, shouldn't it?
> Or is array indexing endian dependent?
Maybe endian is index dependent (heh, you never know with Ada!)