From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 578 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2005 23:06:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 569 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Dec 2005 23:06:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sun, 04 Dec 2005 23:06:50 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1Ej2wQ-0006o4-QP; Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:06:46 -0500 Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:23:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: jimb@red-bean.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] Deal with -g1 generated DWARF2 debug info Message-ID: <20051204230646.GA26122@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , jimb@red-bean.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200512041859.jB4IxrVO001319@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <8f2776cb0512041316w14c80cfdka34f84fcbd3c6cdb@mail.gmail.com> <20051204212244.GA24021@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0512041400x257a1889u8fb53eb23e62ce49@mail.gmail.com> <20051204221547.GA25034@nevyn.them.org> <200512042239.jB4Mdc8k021405@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200512042239.jB4Mdc8k021405@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-12/txt/msg00098.txt.bz2 On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 11:39:38PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 17:15:47 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > The compiler is buggy, but I object to any classification of this as a > > BSD-specific change; it's GCC that's buggy and Debian used -g1 too for > > a while. It ICEs on some targets, and does this sort of thing. > > > > Mark, FYI, we ended up removing all dwarf sections other than > > .debug_frame. This plus .symtab are enough to make backtraces useful; > > it works quite well and avoids the undertested -g1. > > Hmm, perhaps we're just lucky, but it seems that all supported OpenBSD > platforms have no problem with -g1. I'll keep your idea in mind as > plan B. Doesn't it result in gdb printing the wrong function names > for static function names in backtraces? No. It gets those from .symtab; that's why we left it in. > Meanwhile, I still think that find_function_in_inferior() should be > fixed to deal with -g1. I'm uncertain. What GCC is producing is definitely wrong. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC