From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 73510 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2015 22:26:21 -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 73498 invoked by uid 89); 5 Nov 2015 22:26:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 22:26:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA9DBC100478 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 22:26:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pinnacle.lan (ovpn-113-161.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.161]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tA5MQH2p031307 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA256 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 17:26:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 22:26:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb.dwarf2: Define and use gdb_target_symbol_prefix for symbol prefixes Message-ID: <20151105152616.18e00a5c@pinnacle.lan> In-Reply-To: <563BC7C9.3040404@redhat.com> References: <20151029212509.438b5642@pinnacle.lan> <56334F21.1020205@redhat.com> <20151104144908.320110e1@pinnacle.lan> <563B2BF1.2050007@redhat.com> <20151105130140.0fd3404f@pinnacle.lan> <563BC7C9.3040404@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg00191.txt.bz2 On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 21:19:05 +0000 Pedro Alves wrote: > On 11/05/2015 08:01 PM, Kevin Buettner wrote: > > On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 10:14:09 +0000 > > Pedro Alves wrote: > > >> > Not sure I see what makes gdb.dwarf2/atomic-type.exp different? > >> > E.g., the gdb.dwarf2/dw2-bad-mips-linkage-name.exp hunk looks quite > >> > similar. What makes gdb.dwarf2/atomic-type.exp special? > > I was mistaken. Both of these tests - dw2-bad-mips-linkage-name.exp > > and atomic-type.exp - have problems due to the fact that the call to > > gdb_target_symbol appears within a DW_TAG_ construct. The proc > > _handle_DW_TAG performs command and variable expansion within a DW_TAG_ > > construct. (It does other things too.) > > ... > > > --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/dw2-regno-invalid.exp > > +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/dw2-regno-invalid.exp > ... > > compile_unit { > > - {low_pc main DW_FORM_addr} > > - {high_pc main+0x10000 DW_FORM_addr} > > + {low_pc [gdb_target_symbol main] DW_FORM_addr} > > + {high_pc [gdb_target_symbol main]+0x10000 DW_FORM_addr} > > } { > > declare_labels integer_label > > > > @@ -43,8 +43,8 @@ Dwarf::assemble $asm_file { > > DW_TAG_subprogram { > > {name main} > > {DW_AT_external 1 flag} > > - {low_pc main DW_FORM_addr} > > - {high_pc main+0x10000 DW_FORM_addr} > > + {low_pc [gdb_target_symbol main] DW_FORM_addr} > > + {high_pc [gdb_target_symbol main]+0x10000 DW_FORM_addr} > > Aren't these above more instances that needed the "join"? I believe > so, but if not, I'd like to understand why not. You're right; they did. > The patch looks good to me otherwise. Thanks again for your review. I've pushed it. Kevin