From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19230 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2009 10:58:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 19221 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Apr 2009 10:58:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:58:47 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A24552BAC93; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:58:45 -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 a02AmRSZopNq; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0816A2BAC91; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EAE49F5924; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:10:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:58:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: "H.J. Lu" , GDB Subject: Re: RFC: Support DW_TAG_entry_point Message-ID: <20090423061003.GA7552@adacore.com> References: <20090320220041.GA26894@lucon.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00641.txt.bz2 > HJ> I have a patch to support DW_TAG_entry_point. > > I don't really understand most of this patch; perhaps someone more > familiar with dwarf2read.c could review it. I started reviewing it a while ago, but never got to the end of it. > However: > > HJ> + /* A DW_TAG_subprogram DIE may have DW_TAG_entry_point DIEs > HJ> + as children. */ > HJ> + if (pdi->tag == DW_TAG_subprogram > HJ> + && pdi->has_children > HJ> + && pdi->die_child > HJ> + && pdi->die_child->tag == DW_TAG_entry_point) > HJ> + scan_partial_symbols (pdi->die_child, lowpc, highpc, cu); > > This looks strange to me. IIUC, there's no requirement that > DW_TAG_entry_point be the first child. That was my main observation at the time. -- Joel