Re: Simple but crucial bug fix to gdb

[Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>]

On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 10:19:02PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
>
>Fernando Nasser <fnasser@cygnus.com> writes:
>> I cannot approve the patch because I am not the maintainer of the
>> stabs reader, but (for the reasons you've explained above) this
>> seems to fall clearly into the obvious fix rule.
>
>This is *not* an obvious fix.
>
>The stabs reader has seen a symbol definition, before it has any idea
>what compilation unit that symbol belongs to.  Are you *sure* it's
>okay to just ignore that symbol definition?  Won't the psymtab's start
>and end addresses get set wrong?

Oops.  I just checked it in.  I thought it was obvious since the previous
code was checking for pst != NULL, although the code that previously
checked is under a SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING conditional.

Is the SOFUN... an extenuating case or is this code:

#ifdef SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING
        /* Do not fix textlow==0 for .o or NLM files, as 0 is a legit
           value for the bottom of the text seg in those cases. */
        if (pst && textlow_not_set)
          {
            pst->textlow =
              find_stab_function_addr (namestring, pst->filename, objfile);
            textlow_not_set = 0;
          }
#endif

wrong?

cgf