Re: [PATCHv2] Fix setting breakpoints or stepping on line 65535

Simon Marchi
2019-12-29T19:46:23Z

On 2019-12-02 1:04 p.m., Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 12/1/19 11:08 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>> * Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de> [2019-11-24 11:54:23 +0000]:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> this removes code that is present from the very first git revisison
>>> 7b4ac7e1ed2c4616bce56d1760807798be87ac9e from 1988. It was in the
>>> gdb/dbxread.c at the time (and makes more sense for dbx line info format
>>> since line numbers are 16-bit entities in that debug format and debugging
>>> files with more than 65535 lines would not work anyway) but moved from
>>> there to gdb/buildsym.c which is used for dwarf line info as well, and
>>> excluding an arbitrary line number does certainly not make sense nowadays.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Bernd.
>>
>>> From f202ae765b72ad6d17600eb661993a63191309f7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
>>> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 07:37:26 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Fix setting breakpoints or stepping on line 65535
>>>
>>
>> Bernd,
>>
>> Thanks for looking into this, and especially thanks for adding a test!
>>
>> Normally you should include the git commit message and ChangeLog along
>> with your patch submission so that these can be reviewed too. 'git
>> format-patch' and 'git send-email' can be useful for this, if you can
>> get them setup.
>>
>
> Okay, I added changelog messages for gdb/ChangeLog and gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog,
> and improved the commit messages.
> I hope you can handle the format-patch files as attachments.
>
>> Given the age of the code you're removing I think this change sounds
>> reasonable. I assume there's no test that covers why this code should
>> be there, so you see no regressions with this code removed?
>>
>
> No, there were no regressions (last full test on 24-11-19).
>
>> I have a couple of minor issues with the test. If you address those
>> and repost with commit message and ChangeLog this can be approved.
>>
>
> Fixed the test.
>
> Thanks a lot for your review.
> Is it OK for trunk?

Thanks Bernd, this is OK. For the future, I think it would be reasonable to put the
fix and the test in the same patch. It would also help somebody wondering why we have
such a weird test trace it back to the fix, and the explanation you have put in the first
patch. But it's also fine like this.

I don't remember, do you have an account to push patches now?

Simon