From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18054 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2004 22:25:53 -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 18024 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2004 22:25:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Sep 2004 22:25:52 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8KMPqDA000308 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:25:52 -0400 Received: from zenia.home.redhat.com (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8KMPor05328; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:25:51 -0400 To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFA] Don't apply line-number tweaks for non-GCC compilers References: <200408141503.i7EF38O5004624@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <200409202159.i8KLxTvs041757@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Jim Blandy Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:25:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200409202159.i8KLxTvs041757@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00330.txt.bz2 Mark Kettenis writes: > From: Jim Blandy > Date: 20 Sep 2004 16:44:33 -0500 > > [ That earned you a nice bounce I suppose. I've moved, and therefore > got rid of my cable. On the bright side, I've now got a decent ISP > and a fixed IP address. ] > > Mark Kettenis writes: > > The line-number tweaks we do for the sake of GCC 2.95.3 mess up the > > line number info for non-GCC compilers that emit stabs. In particular > > this makes it annoying to debug code using the Sun compilers on SPARC. > > This patch attempts to fix that. Please refer to the comment in the > > code for details. > > > > I deliberately did not remove the while line-number hack. In the end > > that's what we should really do, but I still do most of my GDB work on > > systems that have GCC 2.95.3 as their default compiler, and I really > > like being able to run the testsuite on those platforms. > > > > OK? > > (Thanks for finding this, Andrew.) > > Is there any reason you're not testing processing_gcc_compilation, > instead of checking the last N_FUN's desc? > > Other than that it's a global variable? No not really. I suppose it > was because the patch actually is a slimmed down version of a patch > that tried (and failed) to distinguish between a broken GCC and a > fixed GCC too. > > Do you prefer checking processing_gcc_compilation? I suppose it's > better because it makes the intent clearer. Yes, I'd prefer that. I see processing_gcc_compilation as one of the global variables used to communicate with buildsym.c, like the context stack, the subfile stack, and so on.