From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22494 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2004 22:00:25 -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 22413 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2004 22:00:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Sep 2004 22:00:17 -0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by walton.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i8KM0Cwh023436; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:00:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i8KLxTjZ041760; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:59:29 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.12.6p3/8.12.6/Submit) id i8KLxTvs041757; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:59:29 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:00:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200409202159.i8KLxTvs041757@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: jimb@redhat.com CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Jim Blandy on 20 Sep 2004 16:44:33 -0500) Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFA] Don't apply line-number tweaks for non-GCC compilers References: <200408141503.i7EF38O5004624@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00329.txt.bz2 From: Jim Blandy Date: 20 Sep 2004 16:44:33 -0500 [ That earned you a nice bounce I suppose. I've moved, and therefore got rid of my cable. On the bright side, I've now got a decent ISP and a fixed IP address. ] Mark Kettenis writes: > The line-number tweaks we do for the sake of GCC 2.95.3 mess up the > line number info for non-GCC compilers that emit stabs. In particular > this makes it annoying to debug code using the Sun compilers on SPARC. > This patch attempts to fix that. Please refer to the comment in the > code for details. > > I deliberately did not remove the while line-number hack. In the end > that's what we should really do, but I still do most of my GDB work on > systems that have GCC 2.95.3 as their default compiler, and I really > like being able to run the testsuite on those platforms. > > OK? (Thanks for finding this, Andrew.) Is there any reason you're not testing processing_gcc_compilation, instead of checking the last N_FUN's desc? Other than that it's a global variable? No not really. I suppose it was because the patch actually is a slimmed down version of a patch that tried (and failed) to distinguish between a broken GCC and a fixed GCC too. Do you prefer checking processing_gcc_compilation? I suppose it's better because it makes the intent clearer. Mark