--- Comment #19 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 14:17 ---
Someone should make gdb understand the DW_AT_calling_convention attribute.
This is the bit necessary to make it work for Fortran. I considered stealing a
bit on FUNCTION_DECL to mark it as the main program but it s
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2005-08-08 11:28:30 |2006-02-13 04:09:55
date||
--- Comment #18 from woodzltc at sources dot redhat dot com 2005-11-15
03:04 ---
Hi Andrew,
(In reply to comment #8)
> Dwarf2 has DW_AT_entry_point for the same thing as the stabs N_MAIN.
I am now believing that DW_CC_program is for this purpose in DWARF. Please
have a look at the fo
--- Additional Comments From woodzltc at sources dot redhat dot com
2005-08-24 06:06 ---
I just found the above issue I opened is defered to DWARF4. (Pls refer to
http://dwarf.freestandards.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=050808.2&type=closed). Did
it means that we need to wait a long time to
--- Additional Comments From woodzltc at sources dot redhat dot com
2005-08-09 07:04 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
[snip]
> Please add an issue on dwarf.freestandards.org and i'll take it from
> there.
I had added an public comment titiled "add a new entry to identify the main
functi
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-09
04:18 ---
Subject: Re: gcj should generate N_MAIN stab or
DW_AT_entry_point dwarf2 debug info
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 04:11 +, woodzltc at sources dot redhat dot
com wrote:
> --- Additional Comments F
--- Additional Comments From woodzltc at sources dot redhat dot com
2005-08-09 04:11 ---
OK. I had some time and would like to have a look into this, and I found
something inconsistent. My founding is listed below, wishing that it can help
clarify the situation a little:
1. Someone
--- Additional Comments From drow at false dot org 2005-08-08 15:48 ---
Subject: Re: gcj should generate N_MAIN stab or DW_AT_entry_point dwarf2
debug info
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 03:23:22PM -, aph at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I think we have deadlock here! It's easy enough to
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-08
15:45 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I think we have deadlock here! It's easy enough to fix this once the changes
> have been made to gdb but pretty pointless otherwise.
Note: the gdb changes are also needed for fo
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-08 15:23
---
I think we have deadlock here! It's easy enough to fix this once the changes
have been made to gdb but pretty pointless otherwise.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1427
--- You are receiv
--- Additional Comments From green at redhat dot com 2005-08-08 15:14
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Anthony, do you think this bug should be fixed?
Yes, I think so.
> What is the status of your gdb
> patch?
It hasn't been applied. I never followed up on the comments from the gdb
ma
--- Additional Comments From aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-08 11:28
---
This bug seems to be moribund.
There exists code in gcc (gen_entry_point_die) to do this, but it is ifdef'd out
at the present time. We could uncomment it and call it; I don't imagine it
would be hard.
Anthon
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||woodzltc at sources dot
||redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1427
aph at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1427
aph at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1427
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last
16 matches
Mail list logo
