Roland Mainz wrote:
 > Erm... you mean you currently own CR# 6575435 ctf tools cannot handle
 > C99 VLAs ("variable length arrays") ?

The right bugs to look at next are the dwarf/CTF related bugs:

6314239 ctfmerge finds duplicate types when it sees dwarf output from Sun C 
compiler
6495122 (Solaris/dwarf) (intel only) missing type information
6387369 missing struct definition with dwarf

For 6314239
At the moment we don't know if it's a compiler problem or a ctf utils problem.
It would help if that bug had a simple set of commands to reproduce the problem.
6314239 points to 6495122

For 6495122   This was fixed in Sun Studio 12.
For 6387369   This was fixed in Sun Studio 12.

It's probably time for someone to try building some OS modules
with dwarf and ctf and Sun Studio 12, and see what the latest
problems are.


--chris








Roland Mainz wrote:
 > Chris Quenelle wrote:
 >> Peter Memishian wrote:
 >>>  > Are there any news about CR #6575435 ("ctf tools cannot handle C99 VLAs
 >>>  > ("variable length arrays")") or is there any ETA when this bug may get
 >>>  > fixed ?
 >>>
 >>> Doesn't look like it has an RE yet, so it seems there's no ETA.
 >> I'm not sure what's going on with this problem:
 >>
 >> cause known:    6575435 ctf tools cannot handle C99 VLAs ("variable length 
 >> arrays")
 >> fix delivered:  5035276 ctfconvert needs to support the new VLA stab
 >> accept:         6379193 ctfconvert needs to support VLA for gcc's DWARF
 >>
 >> I'm not sure what the difference is between 6575435 and 5035276.
 >>
 >> Keep in mind that stabs is no longer used by default in Sun Studio 12, and 
 >> it's not
 >> getting very much testing.  The CTF tools should be converted to read dwarf 
 >> from
 >> the Sun Studio compilers.
 >>
 >> John Levon sent me some bugids related to using dwarf with CTF, and I 
 >> haven't had a chance
 >> to follow up on them so far.  I think the ball's in my court for now.
 >
 > Erm... you mean you currently own CR# 6575435 ctf tools cannot handle
 > C99 VLAs ("variable length arrays") ?
 >
 > ----
 >
 > Bye,
 > Roland
 >

Reply via email to