[Dwarf-Discuss] DW_TAG_base_type must have DW_AT_name?
jakub at redhat.com
Wed Oct 27 12:30:05 PDT 2010
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 07:25:14PM +0000, Robinson, Paul T (JCTL-NonStop) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:39:24AM -0400, Kendrick Wong wrote:
> Section 5.1 clearly did not contemplate the existence of a language
> that doesn't have predefined base types, but I think COBOL can be
> accurately described that way. It has a kind of sub-language for
> specifying characteristics of types (the PICTURE and USAGE clauses).
> You couldn't even really give a name to a user-defined type until
> the COBOL-2002 standard introduced TYPEDEF.
> Language-lawyering the text in 5.1, three attributes are specified
> as "has": name, encoding, and (byte_size or bit_size). The latter
> are really required, in the sense that the entry is meaningless
> without them, but the name doesn't fall into that category.
> So, I think an editorial correction for name would be appropriate.
We've added recently code into GCC so that we generate "__unknown__"
name for base types if there is no real user name for these language
lawyering reasons, if there is general agreement this can be changed
into "may have" I'd be more than happy to change it back.
More information about the Dwarf-Discuss