> On 8/2/22 08:42, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/26/22 14:58, Indu Bhagat wrote:
On 7/22/22 4:23 AM, Jose E. Marchesi via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> Contrary to CTF and our previous expectations, as per [1], turns out
> that in BTF:
>
> 1) The `encoding' field in integ
On 8/2/22 08:42, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/22 14:58, Indu Bhagat wrote:
>>> On 7/22/22 4:23 AM, Jose E. Marchesi via Gcc-patches wrote:
Contrary to CTF and our previous expectations, as per [1], turns out
that in BTF:
1) The `encoding' field in integer types
> On 7/26/22 14:58, Indu Bhagat wrote:
>> On 7/22/22 4:23 AM, Jose E. Marchesi via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>
>>> Contrary to CTF and our previous expectations, as per [1], turns out
>>> that in BTF:
>>>
>>> 1) The `encoding' field in integer types shall not be treated as a
>>> bitmap, but as an
On 7/26/22 14:58, Indu Bhagat wrote:
> On 7/22/22 4:23 AM, Jose E. Marchesi via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>
>> Contrary to CTF and our previous expectations, as per [1], turns out
>> that in BTF:
>>
>> 1) The `encoding' field in integer types shall not be treated as a
>> bitmap, but as an enumerat
On 7/22/22 4:23 AM, Jose E. Marchesi via Gcc-patches wrote:
Contrary to CTF and our previous expectations, as per [1], turns out
that in BTF:
1) The `encoding' field in integer types shall not be treated as a
bitmap, but as an enumerated, i.e. these bits are exclusive to each
other.
2)
Contrary to CTF and our previous expectations, as per [1], turns out
that in BTF:
1) The `encoding' field in integer types shall not be treated as a
bitmap, but as an enumerated, i.e. these bits are exclusive to each
other.
2) The CHAR bit in `encoding' shall _not_ be set when emitting ty
