From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9959 invoked by alias); 9 May 2002 18:06:07 -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 9950 invoked from network); 9 May 2002 18:06:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zwingli.cygnus.com) (208.245.165.35) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 May 2002 18:06:06 -0000 Received: by zwingli.cygnus.com (Postfix, from userid 442) id B02C35EA11; Thu, 9 May 2002 13:06:05 -0500 (EST) To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFA] dbxread.c: Complain when local symbols are discarded References: <1020509000616.ZM10715@localhost.localdomain> From: Jim Blandy Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 11:06:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1020509000616.ZM10715@localhost.localdomain> 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: 2002-05/txt/msg00280.txt.bz2 Looks good to me. Kevin Buettner writes: > I've found that some older versions of gcc incorrectly output N_LSYM > entries after the corresponding (enclosing) N_LBRAC entry. The real > fix for this problem is to patch gcc with the following patch from > Richard Henderson: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-12/msg00870.html > > However, it seems to me that GDB should not be silently discarding > local symbols, hence the reason for the new complaint. > > Okay to commit? > > * dbxread.c (discarding_local_symbols_complaint): New complaint. > (process_one_symbol): Complain about discarding local symbols > due to a misplaced N_LBRAC entry. > > Index: dbxread.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/dbxread.c,v > retrieving revision 1.32 > diff -u -p -r1.32 dbxread.c > --- dbxread.c 24 Apr 2002 08:00:54 -0000 1.32 > +++ dbxread.c 8 May 2002 23:54:30 -0000 > @@ -203,6 +203,9 @@ struct complaint repeated_header_complai > > struct complaint unclaimed_bincl_complaint = > {"N_BINCL %s not in entries for any file, at symtab pos %d", 0, 0}; > + > +struct complaint discarding_local_symbols_complaint = > +{"misplaced N_LBRAC entry; discarding local symbols which have no enclosing block", 0, 0}; > > /* find_text_range --- find start and end of loadable code sections > > @@ -2881,7 +2884,21 @@ process_one_symbol (int type, int desc, > /* Can only use new->locals as local symbols here if we're in > gcc or on a machine that puts them before the lbrack. */ > if (!VARIABLES_INSIDE_BLOCK (desc, processing_gcc_compilation)) > - local_symbols = new->locals; > + { > + if (local_symbols != NULL) > + { > + /* GCC development snapshots from March to December of > + 2000 would output N_LSYM entries after N_LBRAC > + entries. As a consequence, these symbols are simply > + discarded. Complain if this is the case. Note that > + there are some compilers which legitimately put local > + symbols within an LBRAC/RBRAC block; this complaint > + might also help sort out problems in which > + VARIABLES_INSIDE_BLOCK is incorrectly defined. */ > + complain (&discarding_local_symbols_complaint); > + } > + local_symbols = new->locals; > + } > > if (context_stack_depth > > !VARIABLES_INSIDE_BLOCK (desc, processing_gcc_compilation))