From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-25860-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 10056 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2003 20:59:57 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 9788 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2003 20:59:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (62.163.169.212)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2003 20:59:44 -0000
Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2])
	by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p2/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h6AKxhaM002150;
	Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:59:43 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org)
Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6AKxht3003494;
	Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:59:43 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)
	by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p2/8.12.6/Submit) id h6AKxgEb003491;
	Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:59:42 +0200 (CEST)
To: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Cc: ezannoni@redhat.com, gdb-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [RFA] Don't SEGV on invalid dwarf2 frame info
References: <20030710010318.GA3645@twiddle.net>
From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:59:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: Richard Henderson's message of "Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:03:18 -0700"
Message-ID: <86wueqp075.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org>
X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00217.txt.bz2

Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> writes:

> Elena, this is the patch I was thinking about.
> 
> For the audience, there is at least one bug in current cvs ld's .eh_frame
> optimization code that results in padding being added between sections.
> But we saw similar problems when we added support for .eh_frame generation
> within the assembler (and didn't .align sections), so the discussion in 
> the patch is a bit more broad than that.
> 
> Does this seem reasonable?

It does to me.  It's unfortunately that this is necessary, but it
makes things more robust, so please check this in.

Mark