stabs and #define/#undef
Daniel Jacobowitz
drow@false.org
Tue Oct 24 20:07:00 GMT 2006
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 02:40:52PM -0400, David Taylor wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:30:00 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 07:59:01AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > > Please send a patch to the gdb folks for gdb/doc/stabs.texinfo. In
> > > fact, please do that before you check the change into gcc, in case
> > > they have any recommend changes.
> >
> > None of the GDB developers seem to care about stabs any longer, to be
> > honest; our focus is mostly on modern platforms using DWARF-2.
>
> Agreed. By contrast EMC's primary interest is embedded. And I
> suspect that there are other embedded users out there that would like
> to have some of the functionality that has been available for dwarf-2
> for quite a while.
I am going to stomp on this turn of phrase immediately before it gets
out of hand. Embedded has _nothing_ to do with it. You have your own
in-house tools that mandate the use of stabs, that's all.
My focus lately has been on embedded platforms, and every one of them I
work with uses DWARF-2.
The size issue is a real one, and a well known one; there are various
approaches to it, but so far none of them have been thoroughly
implemented across the GNU toolchain.
> > I don't know what issues there are with grabbing arbitrary numbers for
> > the new stabs. Other than that, I don't see what could be
> > objectionable.
>
> I look upon the stabs.texinfo and stabs.def files as the unofficial
> ``clearinghouse'' (for want of a better word) for stabs stuff.
That's because you're a GNU developer :-) Sun's got the master copy,
but I don't know how horribly incompatible the two are now.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list