From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12221 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2008 15:43:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 12101 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Sep 2008 15:43:22 -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; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:42:40 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B076310D2F; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:42:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9877210199; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:42:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KkhMy-0003Sm-4q; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:42:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:43:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/DWARF2] Handle nested subprograms in CU pc bound calculation Message-ID: <20080930154235.GA13221@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080930152757.GC23135@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080930152757.GC23135@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-09/txt/msg00572.txt.bz2 On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 08:27:57AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Here is what happens: > > 1. When compiling with -ffunction-sections, the compiler is not > providing the CU PC bounds (DW_AT_low_pc and DW_AT_high_pc). > I would imagine that this is because functions might be removed > later during the link, and thus bounds might be affected. It should provide DW_AT_ranges instead. Is it not doing that? What era compiler is this? The patch is fine, either way. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery