>>> But if the consensus turns out to be that enumerators should be in >>> pubnames, wouldn't it also be fairly easy to change prune_unused_types >>> so that it doesn't mark enumerators, and change output_pubnames to >>> skip enumerators that have been pruned? >> >> This makes sense to me. > > Enclosed is a patch that does it this way. It requires special-casing > enumerators in two places. > > Personally, it seems cleaner to me just to put them in the pubtypes > table, but I am happy to do it whichever way you want.
Sterling, I think you were right all along -- this fails with -fdebug-types-section. When we move an enumeration type out to a separate types section, the DIE isn't marked when we try to add the enumerators to the pubnames table, so the enumerators never get added to the pubnames table. I'm not sure if there's an easy way to get them added to pubnames in that case; it might be easier to go back to putting them in pubtypes. -cary
