On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 04:13:18 +0100, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
On 11/22/2011 7:19 AM, Martin Nowak wrote:
- Can we slowly start to acquire DWARF-3/4?
Dwarf 2 is good enough, so why do 3/4?
- Why were extensions chosen over say representing an array as two
field struct?
Because it is presumably harder to get a debugger to recognize a magic
struct than explicitly give it a type.
Dwarf-4 supports arbitrary expressions for array base addresses and the
upper bound,
one could directly translate D arrays. GDB doesn't support it at the
moment,
but it basically rules out requesting an extension to the DWARF standard.
I think currently the best decision is to use the existing D support in
GDB.
C++0x will likely lead to extended support in GDB, while llvm-db should
improve the OSX debugger support.
With better support for the new formats we should be able to express
specific D
constructs in DWARF.
- There is this request by Robert Clipsham
http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=100504.1.
What's the state of this, it wouldn't be needed any longer.
- We should contact http://www.zero-bugs.com, it is said to support the
dwarf extensions and would need to be changed.
- Find out who else is affected by changing the current extensions.
- Fixing the D-ABI specification.
Are the issues in bugzilla?
- Are there other DWARF debuggers that we should take into account?
- Adding a page to GNU wiki describing the D extensions.
- We could probably use DW_TAG_GNU_template_parameter_pack for variadic
template
arguments.
http://wiki.dwarfstd.org/index.php?title=C%2B%2B0x:_Variadic_templates
martin
