Re: [PATCH 2/6] Remove some dead code from buildsym.c

[Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>]

On 4/17/26 2:24 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> This patch removes some code from buildsym.c that, according to the
> comment, was only used for some SCO or maybe COFF thing.  This code is
> dead now, and it was a hack anyway and probably should never have been
> allowed.
> ---
>  gdb/buildsym.c | 12 +-----------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/gdb/buildsym.c b/gdb/buildsym.c
> index aa95889424b..f6cc5c153c2 100644
> --- a/gdb/buildsym.c
> +++ b/gdb/buildsym.c
> @@ -635,18 +635,8 @@ buildsym_compunit::end_compunit_symtab_get_static_block (CORE_ADDR end_addr,
>        /* Make a block for the local symbols within.  */
>        finish_block (cstk.name, cstk.old_blocks, NULL,
>  		    cstk.start_addr, end_addr);
> -
> -      if (!m_context_stack.empty ())
> -	{
> -	  /* This is said to happen with SCO.  The old coffread.c
> -	     code simply emptied the context stack, so we do the
> -	     same.  FIXME: Find out why it is happening.  This is not
> -	     believed to happen in most cases (even for coffread.c);
> -	     it used to be an abort().  */
> -	  complaint (_("Context stack not empty in end_compunit_symtab"));
> -	  m_context_stack.clear ();
> -	}
>      }

I wonder if the whole if above is still useful.  It seems to me like
debug readers (pretty much just DWARF nowadays) should not leave a
function scope open.  And I guess that the DWARF reader goes not.  I did
put a gdb_assert_not_reached in there and ran a few tests and it didn't
trigger.  In other words, I wonder if you could remove that if and just
keep the

  gdb_assert (m_context_stack.empty ());

Simon