From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3994 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2002 15:20:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3924 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2002 15:20:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dberlin.org) (64.246.6.106) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Jan 2002 15:20:46 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dberlin.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g04FL4P21890; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:21:04 -0500 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 07:20:00 -0000 From: Daniel Berlin X-X-Sender: To: Richard Henderson cc: Subject: Re: [RFC] Partial support for dwarf3 DW_AT_ranges In-Reply-To: <20011231003448.A3399@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00024.txt.bz2 On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Richard Henderson wrote: > GCC began emitting DW_AT_ranges back in September to deal with > lexical scopes made discontiguous by basic block reordering. > > As of today, it may also create discontiguous lexical scopes > due to scheduling. (Before today under the same circumstances > we'd lose track of which instructions belonged to which scope > and fail to emit any debug information whatsoever.) > > However, GDB doesn't recognize DW_AT_ranges as a valid way of > marking a lexical scope, which causes it to discard the scope > entirely. Which is probably the least useful thing that could > be done. > > The following does not add proper support for discontiguous > address ranges. I couldn't figure out how to do that in any > way that wasn't horribly invasive. Horribly invasive to the dwarf2 reader, or to other pieces of gdb?