From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 88958 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2015 15:50:26 -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 88940 invoked by uid 89); 12 Oct 2015 15:50:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:50:25 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1EB429415; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:50:22 -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 lhrG2Sk9YXHK; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D77F28E61; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3A36D42BBA; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 08:50:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:50:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: David Edelsohn Cc: Doug Evans , Tristan Gingold , GDB Patches Subject: Re: AIX DWARF debugging sections Message-ID: <20151012155021.GC3341@adacore.com> References: <20151002213227.GA3602@adacore.com> <20151006165157.GA3341@adacore.com> <20151010000433.GB3341@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00155.txt.bz2 > >> I'm not really sure how to best proceed, here. On the one hand, > >> IBM can be considered the authority on these kinds of questions. > >> On the other hand, GDB being a GNU tool, we should probably make > >> it easier to debug code produced by GNU tools rather than by > >> propriatery ones... It's particularly tempting since GNU as > >> has chosen different section names, which seems to be a better > >> choice to me, and also happens to make it easier on the code. > > > > > > Agreed. > > Not agreed. > > AIX has a definition of DWARF on the platform. Adacore invented an > incompatible definition of DWARF on AIX (and has known about the > correct definition since 2011). How can GDB developers argue for > conformance with various standards, but ignore the definitions and > documentation of AIX? Unfortunately, David is right. I personally hadn't known about AIX's definition of DWARF, but it doesn't matter. I thought we had contributed our patches by now, but it appears it's been stalled due to some technical issues that Tristan didn't want to spend time on, and that therefore, submission has only been partial. So IBM's definition should be considered as reference, and AdaCore will have to deal with whatever happens because of it. > AIX XLC apparently will not utilize .dwmac macro section until DWARF5 > to encore the .debug_macro section, so GCC and GDB should utilize it > as .debug_macro and not produce or consume .debug_macinfo. OK, if macinfo data cannot be generated by XLC, then it would make sense to me to just ammend your patch to only update the .debug_macro entry. If that's correct, then that avoids the concern I had about having two entries with the same section name. -- Joel