On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 07:44:27PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 02:56:56PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > Some DWARF tests scan the assembly output looking for constant values.
> > When using DWARF5 those constants might use DW_FORM_implicit_const,
> > which are output (in the comments) after the attribute instead of
> > before. To make sure these tests work introduce a -gdwarf-5 variant
> > of these tests and explicitly use -gdwarf-2 for the original.
>
> I just wonder if we want to use -gdwarf-2 rather than -gdwarf-4 in the
> original, -gdwarf-5 has been the default for a couple of years and thus
> that is what those testshave been compiled with.
I used -gdwarf-2 because I thought that was still the default for some
arches/platforms. And they pass with -gdwarf-2.
> Also not sure about the -dwarf5 suffixes, couldn't we say just use
> pr41445-{7,8}.c, inline-var-2.C or inline3.c (or whatever next number
> with the same prefix is still unused)?
Sure, if that is a better naming scheme I'll rename them.
Cheers,
Mark
