https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115272
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #4)
> With this patch:
So, would this approach be acceptable?
If so, I can put effort into doing a proper submission.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115272
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
With this patch:
...
diff --git a/gcc/dwarf2out.cc b/gcc/dwarf2out.cc
index 8ec3856873e..ea3318396e0 100644
--- a/gcc/dwarf2out.cc
+++ b/gcc/dwarf2out.cc
@@ -13247,6 +13247,7 @@ base_type_die (tree type, bool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115272
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > How does it work for 'double' vs. 'long double' themselves?
> >
> > <1><32>: Abbrev Number: 3 (DW_TAG_base_typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115272
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> How does it work for 'double' vs. 'long double' themselves?
>
> <1><32>: Abbrev Number: 3 (DW_TAG_base_type)
> <33> DW_AT_byte_size : 16
> <34>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115272
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
How does it work for 'double' vs. 'long double' themselves?
<1><32>: Abbrev Number: 3 (DW_TAG_base_type)
<33> DW_AT_byte_size : 16
<34> DW_AT_encoding: 4(float)
<35> DW_AT_
