From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-13912-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 12539 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2002 21:51:31 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 12512 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 21:51:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO zwingli.cygnus.com) (208.245.165.35)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 21:51:29 -0000
Received: by zwingli.cygnus.com (Postfix, from userid 442)
	id 10F755EA11; Thu,  4 Apr 2002 16:51:27 -0500 (EST)
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA/stabs] Fix for line table problems (was: Re: [RFC] Gdb line table implementation tweak)
References: <200203251758.g2PHwbe31730@duracef.shout.net>
	<3CA2A76E.8090209@cygnus.com> <20020329133508.A12204@nevyn.them.org>
	<npeli3nl9a.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
	<20020329160533.A24451@nevyn.them.org>
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:51:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <20020329160533.A24451@nevyn.them.org>
Message-ID: <npk7rnb09s.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
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: 2002-04/txt/msg00133.txt.bz2


Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 03:59:13PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > 
> > Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> > > I think so.  Want me to wait for Michael C's report first?
> > 
> > If doing so wouldn't delay 5.2 too much, yes.
> 
> OK, I will.  Could you look over:
>   http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-03/msg00415.html
> (the equivalent patch for DWARF-2), if you get a chance?

So, it's not that the first line number marker is *missing*, it's that
it's *misplaced*.  So repositioning the line is sufficient --- we
don't need to make up an extra entry.  Is that right?

If so, it seems fine, some minor comments:

Could you move the code that initializes the function range list and
the code that adds a new entry to the function range list into their
own functions?

Could check_cu_functions complain when it has to back up a line entry?