From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>
To: Jim Blandy <jimb@cygnus.com>
Cc: Fernando Nasser <fnasser@cygnus.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Simple but crucial bug fix to gdb
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 20:25:00 -0000
Message-id: <20010530232505.A19922@redhat.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.20010530142745.01470ec0@pophost.pdxuxbre.lmc.com> <20010530173650.A21397@redhat.com> <3B15711D.BEA4B77E@cygnus.com> <npvgmimcih.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00499.html

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