On 2022-05-06 21:08, Todd Allen via Dwarf-Discuss wrote: > I'm agreeing with Michael that describing the unnamed bitfield seems dubious. > If it does impact the ABI, I'm wondering if that impact is indirect: that is, > the presence of this 0-width bit field changes an attribute of the next field, > and that attribute is responsible for difference in the behavior. If so, is > there any way other than a 0-width bit field to cause the same behavior? This > might be another case where describing the attribute that's directly > responsible > might be better.
There's also the point of view that the debugger should be able to reconstruct the type to present it to the user, like with e.g., GDB's ptype command. Or to able to pass the right type to a compiler, reconstructed from the DWARF, like e.g., GDB's "compile print" command does, and I believe lldb's expr command too. _______________________________________________ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
