From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id eAhlH2SckV+ePwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:51:16 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 7E6801E89B; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:51:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFFA21E552 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:51:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80EA8386EC23; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:51:15 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 80EA8386EC23 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1603378275; bh=P+A2r5F+9MzvvrKgRrcmrzkDQr3kmRQ3z/JeRcRWGvM=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=FoZR9juowYFStsRzby2UfoVbP02Q5l/bwe99lGOMGAXXY7tv64JhAIqJ/AD4iuip2 f8sGrkfzF7oZTN7tCCLIZw5xI1rj7vF6lTNjdDTwCjrUofTqlLuEGf+u2/ACxa/LDB QqLrEu03pTuEleFs57gZHry58groFzHPz50WFeEg= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B42F386EC23 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:51:11 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 5B42F386EC23 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 09MEp59H011221 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:51:10 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 09MEp59H011221 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AFAA71E552; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:51:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gdb/dwarf: fix reading subprogram with DW_AT_specification (PR gdb/26693) To: Tom Tromey References: <20201020165055.93142-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <878sbzgvk0.fsf@tromey.com> <87h7qmcpj0.fsf@tromey.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:51:05 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87h7qmcpj0.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:51:05 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2020-10-22 10:18 a.m., Tom Tromey wrote: >>> gdb currently goes through a lot of work to support DWARF like this, but >>> I wish it didn't have to. It complicates the DWARF reader -- but IIRC >>> both gcc and clang just emit specializations with names like >>> "apply". So, I wonder if we could drop support for this at some >>> point. > > Simon> The object that contained this kind of DWARF, that made GDB crash, was > Simon> compiled with ICC. So unless we decide to drop support for ICC, I don't > Simon> think we can get rid of it any time soon. > > Well, we could support it in a more limited way - like, these functions > would still appear but without template parameters in their names. > > We could try to get a clarification from DWARF as to whether icc or > gcc/clang are correct here, then file bug(s) against the compiler. Ok, I see. I don't have enough knowledge about this to have an informed opinion at the moment. > Simon> I would write this, does that sound good? > > Simon> /* Load the DIEs associated with PER_CU into memory. > > Simon> In some cases, the caller, while reading partial symbols, will need to load > Simon> the full symbols for the CU for some reason. It will already have a > Simon> dwarf2_cu object for THIS_CU and pass it as EXISTING_CU, so it can be re-used > Simon> rather than creating a new one. */ > > Looks great, thank you. Thanks, pushed to master and gdb-10-branch. Simon