From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-49893-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 31166 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2007 13:01:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 31156 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jul 2007 13:01:13 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:01:10 +0000
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6HD142b024459; 	Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:01:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.0/8.14.0/Submit) id l6HD146D020081; 	Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:01:04 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:21:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200707171301.l6HD146D020081@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: drow@false.org
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20070717124711.GA27936@caradoc.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:47:11 -0400)
Subject: Re: [rfc] Detect dwarf address size mismatch
References: <20070711141912.GA12298@caradoc.them.org> <m31wfeoi5a.fsf@codesourcery.com> <20070711194141.GA28114@caradoc.them.org> <m3hcoabs3r.fsf@codesourcery.com> <20070717124711.GA27936@caradoc.them.org>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00218.txt.bz2

> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:47:11 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>

Hi Daniel,

Sorry I didn't notice this before but:

> @@ -6792,6 +6793,15 @@ dwarf_decode_lines (struct line_header *
>  			     _("mangled .debug_line section"));
>  		  return;
>  		}
> +	      /* Make sure that we parsed the extended op correctly.  If e.g.
> +		 we expected a different address size than the producer used,
> +		 we may have read the wrong number of bytes.  */
> +	      if (line_ptr != extended_end)
> +		{
> +		  complaint (&symfile_complaints,
> +			     _("mangled .debug_line section"));
> +		  return;
> +		}
>  	      break;
>  	    case DW_LNS_copy:
>  	      if (lh->num_file_names < file)

The complaint "mangled .debug_line section" seems a bit unhelpful to
me, especially since there are now two identical messages for what
appears to be somewhat different conditions.  Any chance of changing
it something more distinguishable?

Mark