From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26997 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2007 13:31:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 26963 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Dec 2007 13:31:29 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:31:23 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE1E9814F; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:31:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C288C98100; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:31:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J4G41-00068k-3B; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:31:21 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [i386/stabs] Arguments of main on gcc >= 4.1 Message-ID: <20071217133121.GA23586@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <47503C57.6010308@portugalmail.pt> <20071203182540.GB14306@adacore.com> <20071217004444.GA14356@caradoc.them.org> <20071217041159.GB9022@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071217041159.GB9022@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00268.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 08:11:59AM +0400, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > Looking at your example above, what would work is if GCC was using > > > N_LSYM (128) symbols instead of N_PSYM symbols (160). > > > > If it did that, they wouldn't be treated as arguments any more, just > > as local variables. I think. > > Duh, of course! Not sure what's best in this case - I would tend to > say it's a GCC bug, but perhaps others disagree. I think that the major difference between a GDB bug and a GCC bug is whether we have to get GCC fixed - either way, since it's been in several releases, handling it in GDB is at least worth considering. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery