On Sep 12, 2019, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is this PR91507?
Looks like it. Interesting, I've had this patch sitting in my tree since early June, waiting for the additional verification I completed last night. That was long before the PR was filed. > How do you get around the gdb issue? I was not even aware of one. I focused on preserving at what I regarded as the right place the information we currently dropped on the floor, figuring if any consumers wouldn't take the type information from the definition as overriding/completing that of the specification, they'd eventually be adjusted to do so. The approach I chose was to add the completion type to the definition, not to the specification. I figured leaving the specification alone, reflecting the information available at its source location, and providing the complete type information at the source location that supplies it, was the right thing to do, regardless of whatever debug information consumers were able to do with that information. There's room for dispute as to the correctness of this approach, however. Someone might argue that we should have a separate (IMHO excessive) completion non-defining declaration, pointing back to the initial incomplete declaration with a DW_AT_specification, and perhaps to omit the incomplete type from the incomplete specification, though that doesn't seem to be in line with the common practice of overriding declaration coordinates in the definition. -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter he/him https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo Be the change, be Free! FSF.org & FSF Latin America board member GNU Toolchain Engineer Free Software Evangelist Hay que enGNUrecerse, pero sin perder la terGNUra jamás - Che GNUevara
