From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15496 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2004 13:18:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15442 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2004 13:18:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Apr 2004 13:18:36 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1BFYfR-0003Z2-Jj; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:18:33 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:18:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Blandy Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/dwarf] Eliminate dwarf2_tmp_obstack Message-ID: <20040419131833.GA13666@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com References: <20040419031744.GA22586@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00421.txt.bz2 On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 01:58:40AM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > > Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:17:44 -0400 > > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > > > 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