From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24217 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2005 18:50:35 -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 24201 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2005 18:50:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 30 Apr 2005 18:50:32 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1DRx2r-0004LS-3P; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:50:32 -0400 Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:50:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Elena Zannoni Subject: Re: [rfa] Make the partial DIE cache more robust Message-ID: <20050430185027.GD7009@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Elena Zannoni References: <20050407142959.GA9927@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050407142959.GA9927@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00452.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:30:00AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > There have been several GDB and GCC bug reports about the partial DIE cache. > GDB only saves DIEs of the types that it expects to find > specification/abstract-origin references to; when GCC emits an unexpected > reference, GDB is stuck. > > This patch gets GDB unstuck. We still load only the DIEs we expect to need; > and this patch includes a change similar to Manoj's, to expand the set of > "expected" DIEs to include DW_TAG_member. However, if we try to load a DIE > and can not find it in cache, but we can find its CU, we will now go back > and reload the compilation unit without any heuristics. > > An example of this is any file-scope reference to a function-local DIE; > normally we don't walk into functions when loading partial DIEs, because > it's only necessary in rare cases. For instance the ARM RVCT compiler will > emit out-of-line definitions of methods for function-scope classes. The > class definition and member function declarations are inside the function, > but the member function definitions are outside (in fact, they're in a > different DW_TAG_compile_unit). > > Another example is GCC PR debug/20805. Whether or not the debug information > in that PR is formally correct, reducing the ways in which GDB can choke on > invalid input would be a good thing. > > Is this patch OK? Hi Elena, Have you had a chance to review this patch? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC