On 18/11/2024 05:05, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/17/24 9:01 AM, Mark Harmstone wrote:
If a CodeView struct, class, or union has as a member an anonymous
struct, class, or union, this gets flattened. The sub-struct's members
will appear as if they were part of their parent.
For this, we move part of get_type_num_struct into a new function
add_to_fieldlist, which also handles creating an LF_INDEX overflow item
if an LF_FIELDLIST grows too large. This is because add_struct_member
now calls itself recursively, and so needs to handle overflows itself.
gcc/
* dwarf2codeview.cc (add_to_fieldlist): New function.
(add_struct_member): Call recursively to flatten structs, and call
add_to_fieldlist.
(add_struct_static_member): Call add_to_fieldlist.
(add_struct_function): Call add_to_fieldlist.
(add_struct_inheritance): Call add_to_fieldlist.
(add_struct_nested_type): Call add_to_fieldlist.
(get_type_num_struct): Move code to add_to_fieldlist, and move
responsibility for this to subfunctions.
@@ -5933,36 +5979,69 @@ create_bitfield (dw_die_ref c)
static void
add_struct_member (dw_die_ref c, uint16_t accessibility,
- codeview_subtype **el, size_t *el_len)
+ codeview_custom_type **ct, uint16_t *num_members,
+ unsigned int base_offset)
{
- *el = (codeview_subtype *) xmalloc (sizeof (**el));
- (*el)->next = NULL;
- (*el)->kind = LF_MEMBER;
- (*el)->lf_member.attributes = accessibility;
+ codeview_subtype *el;
+ size_t el_len;
+ dw_die_ref type = get_AT_ref (c, DW_AT_type);
+ unsigned int offset;
+
+ offset = base_offset + get_AT_unsigned (c, DW_AT_data_member_location);
+
+ /* If the data member is actually an anonymous struct, class, or union,
+ follow MSVC by flattening this into its parent. */
+ if (!get_AT_string (c, DW_AT_name) && type
+ && (dw_get_die_tag (type) == DW_TAG_structure_type
+ || dw_get_die_tag (type) == DW_TAG_class_type
+ || dw_get_die_tag (type) == DW_TAG_union_type))
I suspect there's a formatting goof here. The || lines should be linking up under the
first "dw_get_die_tag" call. It's possible this is just a mailer goof, but
it's definitely worth checking.
OK with the formatting fix noted above. Or if no fix is needed, then OK as-is.
Thanks,
Jeff
Thanks Jeff. My mistake, I'll fix it when I push it.
Mark
