On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jay Kamat wrote:
> Ah, I see, that makes a lot of sense. However, I have a couple questions:
>
> > The DW_AT_type of v1 and the DW_AT_type of t2::m1 would need to
> point
> > to the same DIE, otherwise there would be much confusion about these
> being
> > different
Ah, I see, that makes a lot of sense. However, I have a couple questions:
The DW_AT_type of v1 and the DW_AT_type of t2::m1 would need to point
to the same DIE, otherwise there would be much confusion about these being
different types, but being the same type in the DWARF
Would a level of indi
"quality of implementation" thing - but in general, even if a few bugs were
fixed/improvements were made to both Clang and GCC, it's going to be
hard/impossible to track certain things through templates in DWARF - for
similar reasons that it's hard to provide diagnostic messages that describe
types
I wasn't on the list when I originally sent this message, and it didn't show
up in the archive, so I'm sending it again. Sorry if there's duplication:
Hi!
I'm currently working on a debugger which consumes dwarf information
and I noticed a possible discrepancy between output from popular
compil
