From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Elena Zannoni To: Kevin Buettner Cc: David Edelsohn , Elena Zannoni , "Zack Weinberg" , Matthew Conway , Mark Mitchell , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Limited success with 3.0 branch on AIX Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:32:00 -0000 Message-id: <15106.61940.477620.624385@kwikemart.cygnus.com> References: <200105162006.QAA25648@makai.watson.ibm.com> <1010516205027.ZM11789@ocotillo.lan> X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00284.html There is another thread going on in the gdb-patches mailing list about this very same topic: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2001-05/msg00333.html Elena Kevin Buettner writes: > On May 16, 4:06pm, David Edelsohn wrote: > > > What exactly is the "gcc2_compiled." symbol used to enable in GDB? > > How much will it hurt if GDB debugs a GCC-compiled application and does > > not know it was compiled with GCC? > > As noted in past email, generic_use_struct_convention() uses this > information. But, after studying the code again, I've concluded that > the value that this function returns will be the same regardless of > whether "gcc2_compiled." is defined or not. > > Also, we have the following comment from symtab.h: > > /* Version of GCC used to compile the function corresponding > to this block, or 0 if not compiled with GCC. When possible, > GCC should be compatible with the native compiler, or if that > is not feasible, the differences should be fixed during symbol > reading. As of 16 Apr 93, this flag is never used to distinguish > between gcc2 and the native compiler. > > If there is no function corresponding to this block, this meaning > of this flag is undefined. */ > > unsigned char gcc_compile_flag; > > So, if this comment can be believed, gdb's behavior should be the same > regardless of whether or not "gcc2_compiled." is defined. > > My conclusion is that GDB won't be hurt at all (for AIX on Power or > PowerPC) if "gcc2_compiled." is left undefined. > > Kevin >