From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32684 invoked by alias); 31 May 2005 02:50:50 -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 32297 invoked by uid 22791); 31 May 2005 02:50:34 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 May 2005 02:50:34 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Dcwps-000270-7X; Mon, 30 May 2005 22:50:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 05:46:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Wu Zhou Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Add a little IBM XL C++ specific code in dwarf2read.c, to set TYPE_VPTR_FIELDNO and TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE of a virtual class correctly Message-ID: <20050531025031.GA7983@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Wu Zhou , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00658.txt.bz2 Your computer's date is wrong; please fix that. I had to go hunting to see where this message was filed :-) On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 01:53:46PM -0700, Wu Zhou wrote: > Daniel, > > As we discussed in a previous thread before, gdb will drop into SEGV > fault when handling the debug-info of a virtual class which has no > DW_AT_containing_type attribute. ARM's RVCT compiler will generate > this kind of debuginfo and prone to trigger SEGV error, which you > fixed in a big un-cleanuped patch. IBM's XL compiler will also > generate this kind of debuginfo and prone to SEGV error too, on > which I posted a small patch based on yours. > > I see that you are still too busy to look into this. But maybe we > could handle this somewhat easily. My thought is to begin with > eliminating the SEGV error first, which only need a small fix. Then > we could go on with other parts. So I post the following IBM XLC++ > specific patch, wishing that we could make some progress on this. > What is your point on this idea? If you think it is ok, I could also > add ARM specific code into this patch. Please review and comment. > Thanks a lot! I am not the maintainer of this code, so I can't approve patches to it. You currently need to speak with Elena about DWARF-2 patches. I think the change is probably reasonable. Alternatively, we could teach GDB not to rely on TYPE_VPTR_FIELDNO and TYPE_VPTR_BASETYPE if the C++ ABI in use does not require them, which the GNU v3 ABI does not. That would also be a good solution. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC