From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28308 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2008 21:51:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 28299 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jan 2008 21:51:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from qnxmail.qnx.com (HELO nimbus.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:51:04 +0000 Received: by nimbus.ott.qnx.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:51:01 -0500 Message-ID: <2F6320727174C448A52CEB63D85D11F40A72@nova.ott.qnx.com> From: Aleksandar Ristovski To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: dje@google.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Ryan Mansfield Subject: RE: [RFA] patch for DW_AT_comp_dir/DW_AT_name vs .debug_line inco nsistencies Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:51:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00166.txt.bz2 > I do not see how the text you quoted has any bearing on this > situation. Daniel, let me recap: My gcc 3.3.5 output: DW_AT_name : c:/QNXTau/eclipse/ide-4.5-workspace/testManagedCC/main.cc DW_AT_comp_dir : c:/QNXTau/eclipse/ide-4.5-workspace/testManagedCC/Debug ... The Directory Table: .. The File Name Table: Entry Dir Time Size Name 1 1 0 0 main.cc My gcc 4.2.1 output: DW_AT_name : ..\main.cc DW_AT_comp_dir : C:\QNXTau\eclipse\ide-4.5-workspace\testManagedCC\Debug ... The Directory Table is empty. The File Name Table: Entry Dir Time Size Name 1 0 0 0 ..\main.cc Following the spec, I conclude that 1. case 3.3.5: DW_AT_name is correct, according to point 2 of quoted document. DW_AT_comp_dir is correct, according to point 6 of the quoted text. File table in debug_line section is correct (according to the spec) as it specifies files relative to DW_AT_comp_dir. 2. case 4.2.1: DW_AT_name is correct, according to point 2 of quoted document. DW_AT_comp_dir is also correct and file table in debug_line seems to be correct too. You suggested that output from case 3.3.5 was a bug and should not occur (I thought your statement: "The compiler should never do this. I still say that this is a bug in the compiler. " was referring to this situation, apologies if I misinterpreted what you said). Does it make sense now? Thanks, Aleksandar