From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22683 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2014 08:13:58 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 22672 invoked by uid 89); 25 Feb 2014 08:13:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:13:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s1P8Ds1s005182 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:13:54 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-18.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.18]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s1P8DmA6025126 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:13:50 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:13:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches Subject: Re: [patch] gdb_assert -> complaint for weird DWARF Message-ID: <20140225081348.GA11308@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20140224214314.GA5700@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20140224220439.GA7121@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg00749.txt.bz2 On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 23:59:50 +0100, Doug Evans wrote: > Can you send me the binaries for repro? It was sent in the previous mail: http://people.redhat.com/jkratoch/gcc-debuginfo-4.8.2-7.fc20.x86_64-gnatbind.debug > We could probably generate a good testcase for gdb from that. I was thinking about it but: * There is not much to test gdb_assert vs. complaint. * Currently I believe the generated DWARF is incorrect. Detecting that such incorrect DWARF is identified as an incorrect one has limited sense IMO. So far I find it just a GCC bug. > Another worry I have is that if my expectation that we shouldn't be > recursively calling process_die (even for bad debug info) is wrong, > then is there some obscure case where possible accidental re-reading > of a DIE is actually needed by the current code to get the right > answer (IOW is making this a complaint and returning also introducing > a bug? Less of a bug than crashing or infinite recursion of course, > but IWBN to invest some time to dig deeper given that we have a repro > at hand). As I said so far I do not find the DWARF (in the gnatbind case) to be meaningful. Jan