From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5189 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2009 11:10:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 5180 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Apr 2009 11:10:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:10:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3NB9rTn003085; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:09:53 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n3NB9qQP011746; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:09:52 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3NB9oUK027020; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:09:51 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n3NB9f1G011987; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:09:50 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.3/8.14.2/Submit) id n3NB9ePx011984; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:09:40 +0200 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:10:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Tom Tromey , "H.J. Lu" , GDB Subject: Re: RFC: Support DW_TAG_entry_point Message-ID: <20090423110940.GA10652@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <20090320220041.GA26894@lucon.org> <20090423061003.GA7552@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090423061003.GA7552@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00642.txt.bz2 On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:10:03 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote: > On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:13:27 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: > > 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. I guess the whole patch tagets just one compiler's (ifort's?) use of DW_TAG_entry_point. DWARF standard also says neither that DW_TAG_entry_point should be a child of DW_TAG_subprogram nor that it should not have its own DW_AT_high_pc. Therefore assuming DW_TAG_entry_point will be the first child DIE is ensured for the target compiler this patch was made for. Still this patch is a clear improvement of the current GDB state while having no regressions. Shouldn't be a more complete support left as a possible next patch on top of it? Just my $0.02, Jan