https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104194
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:866d73019bd4d1804f7e09409322e6605b81780b commit r12-6882-g866d73019bd4d1804f7e09409322e6605b81780b Author: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> Date: Wed Jan 26 19:42:31 2022 +0100 dwarf2out: For ppc64le IEEE quad long double, emit DW_TAG_typedef to _Float128 [PR104194] On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 11:26:27PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > Yet another short term solution might be not use DW_TAG_base_type > for the IEEE quad long double, but instead pretend it is a DW_TAG_typedef > with DW_AT_name "long double" to __float128 DW_TAG_base_type. > I bet gdb would even handle it without any changes, but of course, it would > be larger than the other proposed changes. Here it is implemented. Testcases I've played with are e.g.: __ibm128 a; long double b; _Complex long double c; static __attribute__((noinline)) int foo (long double d) { long double e = d + 1.0L; return 0; } int main () { a = 1.0; b = 2.0; c = 5.0 + 6.0i; return foo (7.0L); } and real(kind=16) :: a complex(kind=16) :: b a = 1.0 b = 2.0 end Printing the values of the variables works well, p &b or p &c shows pointer to the correct type, just ptype b or ptype c prints _Float128 instead of long double or complex _Float128 instead of complex long double. Even worse in fortran where obviously _Float128 or complex _Float128 aren't valid types, but as GDB knows them by name, it is just ptype that is weird. 2022-01-26 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> PR debug/104194 * dwarf2out.cc (long_double_as_float128): New function. (modified_type_die): For powerpc64le IEEE 754 quad long double and complex long double emit those as DW_TAG_typedef to _Float128 or complex _Float128 base type.
