From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19968 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2009 23:43:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 19919 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Apr 2009 23:43:47 -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; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:43:37 +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 n3NNgqKn025625; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:42:52 -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 n3NNgpDY019317; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:42:51 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-14-41.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.41]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3NNgoM4026106; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:42:50 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id E643837829A; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:42:49 -0600 (MDT) To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Joel Brobecker , "H.J. Lu" , GDB Subject: Re: RFC: Support DW_TAG_entry_point References: <20090320220041.GA26894@lucon.org> <20090423061003.GA7552@adacore.com> <20090423110940.GA10652@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:43:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090423110940.GA10652@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Thu\, 23 Apr 2009 13\:09\:40 +0200") 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/msg00677.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Jan> I guess the whole patch tagets just one compiler's (ifort's?) use Jan> of DW_TAG_entry_point. DWARF standard also says neither that Jan> DW_TAG_entry_point should be a child of DW_TAG_subprogram nor Jan> that it should not have its own DW_AT_high_pc. Therefore Jan> assuming DW_TAG_entry_point will be the first child DIE is Jan> ensured for the target compiler this patch was made for. Ok, I went and looked through DWARF 3 again to try to understand more. I think this means that the compiler in question is emitting invalid DWARF, or at least using its own extension. In that case I suppose I would be more inclined to allow this, provided that it doesn't impact the possibility of correctly implementing DW_TAG_entry_point in the future (maybe the patch already does this too, I really don't know). Assuming this is an extension, I would like a comment to that effect, mentioning the compiler. A test case wouldn't hurt, either. Tom