From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24876 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2008 16:56:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 24845 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Sep 2008 16:56:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:56:01 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0752A969F for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Ih-bcsXmEWWo for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF452A969B for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 82066E7ACD; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:55:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:56:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/DWARF2] Handle nested subprograms in CU pc bound calculation Message-ID: <20080930165557.GG3811@adacore.com> References: <20080930152757.GC23135@adacore.com> <20080930154235.GA13221@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080930154235.GA13221@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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/msg00577.txt.bz2 > > 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 compiler is based on GCC 4.1. I don't really know what GCC 4.3 does. How would the range help with -ffunction-section, though? Does the linker known how to remove one of the ranges when he discards an unused function? > The patch is fine, either way. Thanks, will commit shortly. -- Joel