From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14518 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2012 22:37:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 14410 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Apr 2012 22:37:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ey0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-ey0-f169.google.com) (209.85.215.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 Apr 2012 22:36:53 +0000 Received: by eaal1 with SMTP id l1so904169eaa.0 for ; Sat, 07 Apr 2012 15:36:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.95.13 with SMTP id o13mr310167eef.12.1333838211361; Sat, 07 Apr 2012 15:36:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.38.213 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Apr 2012 15:36:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120406123641.GA18063@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20070604123615.GA22533@caradoc.them.org> <20120406123641.GA18063@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 22:37:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [commit] Handle files without DW_AT_comp_dir From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, iam ahal , Tom Tromey , Eli Zaretskii , palves@redhat.com, dje@google.com, pmuldoon@redhat.com, brobecker@adacore.com, asmwarrior@gmail.com 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00121.txt.bz2 On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > I do not see any problem with it, compilation directory is not known in s= uch > case. =A0I do not see any testcase in this patch which would show which G= CC > versions under which conditions produced such buggy output. =A0These GCC > versions produce correct output, that is: I'm sure it was the current stable GCC at the time. That would be 4.1/4.2. I'd try to find the fix, but picking out a patch by Joseph is like hunting for a needle in a haystack :-) > Without known GCC buggy versions going to revert this patch as it breaks > correct DWARF. =A0The thread "that cuts path to file (remain filename)" t= ries to > (in some way) undo what this patch does. Can you explain the way in which this breaks correct DWARF? I'm confused since the description of the other thread sounds like an output issue, not a debug reader issue... --=20 Thanks, Daniel