Re: [RFA] Fix inconsistency in blockvector addrmap vs non-addrmap handling

[Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 03:14:46 +0200, Doug Evans wrote:
> --- buildsym.c	29 May 2012 20:23:17 -0000	1.97
> +++ buildsym.c	5 Jun 2012 00:26:01 -0000
> @@ -1024,8 +1027,15 @@ end_symtab (CORE_ADDR end_addr, struct o
>      {
>        /* Define the STATIC_BLOCK & GLOBAL_BLOCK, and build the
>           blockvector.  */
> -      finish_block (0, &file_symbols, 0, last_source_start_addr,
> -		    end_addr, objfile);
> +      struct block *static_block;
> +
> +      static_block = finish_block (0, &file_symbols, 0,
> +				   last_source_start_addr, end_addr,
> +				   objfile);
> +      /* Mark the range of the static block so that if we end up using
> +	 blockvector.map then find_block_in_blockvector behaves identically
> +	 regardless of whether the addrmap is present.  */
> +      record_block_range (static_block, last_source_start_addr, end_addr - 1);

On IRC Doug made a note:
	Arguably the second is the better fix but it's still a hack as
	addrmaps are intended to handle discontiguous symtabs and this defeats
	that.

Where "the first fix" was:
	[RFA] Fix gdb segv in dw2_find_pc_sect_symtab
	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-05/msg00958.html

I think the right way is to call dwarf2_record_block_ranges for
DW_AT_compilation_unit but I haven't tried to write such patch yet, is there
a problem?


>        finish_block_internal (0, &global_symbols, 0, last_source_start_addr,
>  			     end_addr, objfile, 1);
>        blockvector = make_blockvector (objfile);


Thanks,
Jan