From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21153 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2009 21:13:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 21143 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Apr 2009 21:13:41 -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; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:13:34 +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 n3MLDURh016454; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:13:30 -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 n3MLDTX4014147; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:13:29 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-14-158.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.158]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3MLDSPc011342; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:13:28 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id CC85837829A; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:13:27 -0600 (MDT) To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: GDB Subject: Re: RFC: Support DW_TAG_entry_point References: <20090320220041.GA26894@lucon.org> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:13:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090320220041.GA26894@lucon.org> (H. J. Lu's message of "Fri\, 20 Mar 2009 15\:00\:41 -0700") 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00614.txt.bz2 >>>>> "HJ" == H J Lu writes: HJ> I have a patch to support DW_TAG_entry_point. I don't really understand most of this patch; perhaps someone more familiar with dwarf2read.c could review it. However: HJ> + /* A DW_TAG_subprogram DIE may have DW_TAG_entry_point DIEs HJ> + as children. */ HJ> + if (pdi->tag == DW_TAG_subprogram HJ> + && pdi->has_children HJ> + && pdi->die_child HJ> + && pdi->die_child->tag == DW_TAG_entry_point) HJ> + scan_partial_symbols (pdi->die_child, lowpc, highpc, cu); This looks strange to me. IIUC, there's no requirement that DW_TAG_entry_point be the first child. Tom