From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1205 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2004 20:57:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1198 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2004 20:57:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cpc4-oxfd5-5-0-cust12.oxfd.cable.ntl.com) (81.105.116.12) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 14 Sep 2004 20:57:10 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cpc4-oxfd5-5-0-cust12.oxfd.cable.ntl.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8EKxaCg023387; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:59:36 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFA] buildsym.c: extend parent block bounds if child block exceed limit From: David Lecomber To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Jim Blandy , Michael Elizabeth Chastain , patches In-Reply-To: <41474D3D.4070809@gnu.org> References: <1091826690.3932.33.camel@localhost> <41474D3D.4070809@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1095194858.5337.38.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:57:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00237.txt.bz2 Hi Andrew, This patch to buildsym hasn't gone in yet. I've not had the pleasure of building a test-case for GDB yet; this particular bug will only show up with the commercial F90 compilers - it'll rely on Michael's changes to add 'optionalize' some compiler specific tests -- I haven't been following where all this is now. If Michael could do the first one, I would probably feel more comfortable adding the extra test cases, Cheers David On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 20:57, Andrew Cagney wrote: > David, > > Per an earlier discussion with myself and MichaelC (added to To:) its > really important that we get testcases for this and the other fortran > bugs in place. I'm kind of begging here :-) > > Once and only with the testcases in place do we have an assurance that > the next change (by someone else entirely) won't regress this existing > change. > > Jim, I suspect everyone has assumed that this was a symtab patch :-) > > Andrew > > ______________________________________________________________________ > From: David Lecomber > To: patches > Subject: [PATCH/RFA] buildsym.c: extend parent block bounds if child block exceed limit > Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 22:11:30 +0100 > > All, > > f90 compiled with nested subroutines using Intel's compiler is handled > badly by GDB. Line numbers are not found by backtrace. > > Although GDB is capable of reading out all the dwarf2 line information > inside this routine correctly, it can't look up an address to get a line > number when inside a block. The cause is that the containing function's > block does not contain the contained function's address. > > > > (gdb) b nest.f90:14 > > Breakpoint 1 at 0x8049e04: file nest.f90, line 14. > > (gdb) r > > Starting program: /home/david/a.out > > [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] > > [New Thread 1024 (LWP 27093)] > > [Switching to Thread 1024 (LWP 27093)] > > > > Breakpoint 1, 0x08049e04 in nest_.second_ () > > (gdb) bt > > #0 0x08049e04 in nest_.second_ () > > #1 0x08049dee in nest () at nest.f90:9 > > #2 0x08049da8 in main () > > where nest.f90 is attached and line 14 is in the middle of nested > function second. > > With the attached patch applied the result is: > > (gdb) bt > > #0 second () at nest.f90:14 > > #1 0x08049dee in nest () at nest.f90:9 > > #2 0x08049da8 in main () > > I'd like to propose the attached patch. Presently if a child block extends > beyond the parent, the child is shrunk to the parent's bounds. This reverses that. > I wouldn't like to guess the possible consequences of this change... > > > 2004-08-06 David Lecomber > > * buildsym.c (finish_block): Extend parent block bounds when child > block exceeds current known bounds. > > Can someone check this and approve/reject? > > d. >