From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12304 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2009 20:13:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 12180 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Oct 2009 20:13:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:13:50 +0000 Received: from spaceape13.eur.corp.google.com (spaceape13.eur.corp.google.com [172.28.16.147]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n9SKDkUx031040 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:13:46 GMT Received: from pwj15 (pwj15.prod.google.com [10.241.219.79]) by spaceape13.eur.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n9SKCNZl015590 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:13:44 -0700 Received: by pwj15 with SMTP id 15so1052543pwj.38 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:13:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.115.67.10 with SMTP id u10mr30353023wak.203.1256760823668; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:13:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200910281935.26781.pedro@codesourcery.com> References: <200910281851.01364.pedro@codesourcery.com> <8ac60eac0910281223q144eb548qe92cc9758d184a96@mail.gmail.com> <200910281935.26781.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:13:00 -0000 Message-ID: <8ac60eac0910281313h565898fvc3dcdc11728bbbec@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: --gc-section leftovers workaround. From: Paul Pluzhnikov To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true 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: 2009-10/txt/msg00678.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Pedro Alves wrot= e: >> The patch looks good to me. > > It wasn't unfortunately. =A0:-( I had posted an early patch > that got one thing wrong. =A0It compared FDE->initial_location to > (FDE+1)->initial_location, to check for overlap, and discarded > FDE if so. =A0But, this isn't correct since FDE may be the valid one > we should keep, and (FDE+1)->initial_location could be 0! Since we've just sorted them, (FDE+1)->initial_location =3D=3D 0 implies th= at FDE->initial_location =3D=3D 0 as well, doesn't it? --=20 Paul Pluzhnikov