From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6278 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2010 12:59:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 6268 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Mar 2010 12:59:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:58:57 +0000 Received: (qmail 31177 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2010 12:58:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 19 Mar 2010 12:58:56 -0000 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:59:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Work around buggy GCC 4.1 namespace dwarf info (GCC PR c++/28460) Message-ID: <20100319125850.GA12263@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <201003191237.o2JCbBAr020607@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201003191237.o2JCbBAr020607@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00728.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 01:37:11PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Note that there is precendent for working around buggy GCC debug info > generation in serious cases already ... My position is that we should work around broken debug info in any compiler that someone cares enough to submit a maintainable workaround for. The goal of GDB is to help people debug, not to process DWARF. > > The following patch works around the problem for me. > Tested on powerpc-linux, fixes (most) C++ test case failures. > > Any comments? Does anybody see a simpler way to work around the problem? This looks pretty simple (and OK) to me. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery