Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul N. Hilfinger" <hilfingr@otisco.mckusick.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Question concerning comment in symtab.h
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 17:04:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200105100004.RAA07318@localhost.localdomain> (raw)

The definition of struct block contains:

    /* Version of GCC used to compile the function corresponding
       to this block, or 0 if not compiled with GCC.  When possible,
       GCC should be compatible with the native compiler, or if that
       is not feasible, the differences should be fixed during symbol
       reading.  As of 16 Apr 93, this flag is never used to distinguish
       between gcc2 and the native compiler.

       If there is no function corresponding to this block, this meaning
       of this flag is undefined.  */

    unsigned char gcc_compile_flag;

Am I correct that this comment is wrong?  For example, in valops.c 
(hand_function_call), we find 

  {
    struct block *b = block_for_pc (funaddr);
    /* If compiled without -g, assume GCC 2.  */
    using_gcc = (b == NULL ? 2 : BLOCK_GCC_COMPILED (b));
  }

  ... and later ...

      if (using_gcc == 0)
	if (param_type)
	  /* if this parameter is a pointer to function */
	  if (TYPE_CODE (param_type) == TYPE_CODE_PTR)
	    if (TYPE_CODE (param_type->target_type) == TYPE_CODE_FUNC)
	      /* elz: FIXME here should go the test about the compiler used
	         to compile the target. We want to issue the error
	         message only if the compiler used was HP's aCC.

which looks to me as if it handles GCC 2 and native compilers differently.

[I ask because we may have another use for BLOCK_GCC_COMPILED, which simply
returns gcc_compile_flag, and I want to understand whether anything DEPENDS
on the assertion in this comment.]

Paul Hilfinger


             reply	other threads:[~2001-05-09 17:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-05-09 17:04 Paul N. Hilfinger [this message]
2001-05-09 17:21 ` Daniel Berlin
2001-05-09 20:42   ` Paul Hilfinger
2001-05-09 21:20     ` Daniel Berlin
2001-05-09 22:33       ` Paul Hilfinger
2001-05-09 23:33         ` Daniel Berlin
2001-05-16 12:39 ` Elena Zannoni
2001-05-16 12:50   ` Paul Hilfinger
2001-05-16 13:09     ` Daniel Berlin
     [not found]     ` <15106.61691.835809.994768@kwikemart.cygnus.com>
2001-05-16 14:39       ` Daniel Berlin
2001-05-16 21:30         ` Elena Zannoni

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200105100004.RAA07318@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=hilfingr@otisco.mckusick.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox