From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22766 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2009 23:49:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 22758 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Apr 2009 23:49:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com (HELO rv-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.198.242) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:49:20 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id k29so602535rvb.48 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:49:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.143.14.6 with SMTP id r6mr506003wfi.135.1240530558685; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:49:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20090320220041.GA26894@lucon.org> <20090423061003.GA7552@adacore.com> <20090423110940.GA10652@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:49:00 -0000 Message-ID: <6dc9ffc80904231649r37d4d106h7aece220a945a2d0@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: RFC: Support DW_TAG_entry_point From: "H.J. Lu" To: tromey@redhat.com Cc: Jan Kratochvil , Joel Brobecker , GDB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00679.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Jan" =3D=3D Jan Kratochvil writes: > > Jan> I guess the whole patch tagets just one compiler's (ifort's?) use > Jan> of DW_TAG_entry_point. =A0DWARF standard also says neither that > Jan> DW_TAG_entry_point should be a child of DW_TAG_subprogram nor > Jan> that it should not have its own DW_AT_high_pc. =A0Therefore > Jan> assuming DW_TAG_entry_point will be the first child DIE is > Jan> ensured for the target compiler this patch was made for. > > Ok, I went and looked through DWARF 3 again to try to understand more. > > I think this means that the compiler in question is emitting invalid > DWARF, or at least using its own extension. =A0In that case I suppose I > would be more inclined to allow this, provided that it doesn't impact > the possibility of correctly implementing DW_TAG_entry_point in the > future (maybe the patch already does this too, I really don't know). I will take a look. > Assuming this is an extension, I would like a comment to that effect, > mentioning the compiler. =A0A test case wouldn't hurt, either. > I do have a testcase. But you need ifort to use it. --=20 H.J.