Re: [RFA/dwarf] Eliminate dwarf2_tmp_obstack

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 01:58:40AM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@elta.co.il> writes:
> 
> > > Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:17:44 -0400
> > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > > 
> > > dwarf2_tmp_obstack serves as a general purpose dumping ground.  After my
> > > previous patches, there are only two things left on it: the linked list we
> > > use to fudge GCC 2.95 line number tables (some day soon I think this hack
> > > should go away; it was primarily for the benefit of the testsuite, and was
> > > fixed at least as of GCC 3.1)
> > 
> > FWIW, I don't think it's time to dump support for GCC 2.95: it is
> > still in wide use as the system compiler on many GNU platforms.
> 
> I think you are right about the prevalence of GCC 2.95.  Michael
> Chastain has made the same sorts of comments.
> 
> But dropping the kludge in question is not the same as dropping GCC
> 2.95 support.  The kludge is a fix for a specific GCC 2.95 bug, and if
> I remember right, GDB had been in widespread use with that compiler
> for several releases before the bug got fixed.  I think GCC 2.95
> defaulted to STABS on the i386 anyway.  (I apologize for being too
> lazy to search the archives to verify all this.)

That's OK, you're right on all counts anyway.  The bug does not render
GCC 2.95 code undebuggable; it just interferes with prologue skipping
and setting breakpoints on the first line of functions, in some cases. 
Both of which are testsuite is heavily biased towards.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer