From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1243 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2002 22:07:33 -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 1235 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2002 22:07:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zwingli.cygnus.com) (208.245.165.35) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Jun 2002 22:07:32 -0000 Received: by zwingli.cygnus.com (Postfix, from userid 442) id 09F0A5EA11; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:07:30 -0500 (EST) To: Hilfinger@otisco.mckusick.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: don't read coff line number unless we have symbols too References: <200206250230.TAA21747@otisco.McKusick.COM> From: Jim Blandy Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:07:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200206250230.TAA21747@otisco.McKusick.COM> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00521.txt.bz2 "Paul N. Hilfinger" writes: > OK. Further investigation (by Donn Terry) indicates that this change is > not a problem. In the cases on Interix that we were worried about, there > is still a linker symbol table with non-debugging symbols, and so the line > numbers aren't tossed after all. I'm remembering more about this now --- COFF line numbers aren't *meaningful* in the absence of linker symbols. They indicate source files by symtab indices. Or some such. So I think it's always got to be harmless to ignore line number info when you don't have symbols. (I'm so out of it. I could be completely wrong about what this patch even does. If what I'm saying is nonsense, just say so and I'll go figure out what I was really thinking.)