From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15655 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2009 23:59:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 15646 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jun 2009 23:59:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:59:37 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n59NxVrI009847; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:59:31 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n59NxTM0013051; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:59:29 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-13-36.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.13.36]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n59NxSwr008361; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:59:28 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 0DF5C486A3; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:59:28 -0600 (MDT) To: Cary Coutant Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Add support for DW_LNE_set_discriminator References: From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:59:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Cary Coutant's message of "Tue\, 9 Jun 2009 17\:22\:35 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00248.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Cary" == Cary Coutant writes: Cary> One question, though. I've written the patch to maintain the Cary> philosophy that gdb will complain about any unknown extended opcodes, Cary> and will give up on processing the remainder of the line number table. Cary> I could change default case in dwarf_decode_lines() to just skip over Cary> unknown extended opcodes, instead of adding the explicit case for the Cary> one new opcode. Which would be preferable? I think the current approach seems reasonable. If someone adds a semantics-changing opcode, it seems preferable to fail than to get the wrong answer. But, I'm not very well versed in the ins and outs of dwarf interpretation... Right now the complaint does not mention the unrecognized opcode or anything like that. It seems like that would be a nice addition. Cary> * dwarf2read.c (dwarf_decode_lines): Recognize and ignore Cary> DW_LNE_set_discriminator. Ok. For future reference, a link to the standard proposal would have helped :) Tom