From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B5DD386F809 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 15:49:11 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 1B5DD386F809 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7945F1ED0B; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 11:49:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/symtab] Ignore zero line table entries To: Tom de Vries , Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Andrew Burgess References: <20200716174922.GA8508@delia> <337a6212-af2f-43e1-76d4-167e18461c4d@simark.ca> <7a690cb6-44dc-d275-bcbb-dbb50ea953ee@palves.net> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <13f44b95-c767-e43b-94bc-c62b895c13b1@simark.ca> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 11:49:04 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 15:49:12 -0000 On 2020-07-24 6:32 p.m., Tom de Vries wrote: > I've now committed my patch (with the bug in the test-case noticed by > Pedro fixed by using MACRO_AT_func) as a stopgap. If we decide to go > with that, we're done. If we decide to try and fix this more precisely, > we have something to revert back to in case things don't work out. > > Thanks, > - Tom Ok, thanks to all. So the plan is to revert this once the branch is cut and apply the various patches (Pedro's and Andrew's, possibly more) necessary to fix each spot not handling line == 0 well. Simon