From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-16250-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 15249 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2003 19:54:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 15094 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2003 19:54:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc13.comcast.net) (204.127.202.64)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Nov 2003 19:54:15 -0000
Received: from lucon.org ([24.6.43.109]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP
          id <200311191954140160081aloe>; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:54:14 +0000
Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 7C3602C828; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:54:09 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:54:00 -0000
From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
To: Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>, GDB <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, jason@redhat.com
Subject: Gdb dwarf bug ([BUG] Regression in 2.14.90 (relative to 2.13.90))
Message-ID: <20031119195409.GA1816@lucon.org>
References: <20031112164010.GA12273@alinoe.com> <m3brrg1cu8.fsf@redhat.com> <20031113223639.GA26358@alinoe.com> <m38ymjxoka.fsf@redhat.com> <20031115164357.GA6521@alinoe.com> <m3oev9n8r7.fsf@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m3oev9n8r7.fsf@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00157.txt.bz2

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:47:40PM +0000, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Carlo,
> 
> > The correct output would give an entry with PC = 0.  And you get
> > (just like me) two entries with both a non-zero PC, which is the
> > bug.  If you would *compile/link* the test case with binutils
> > 2.3.90, then you would see different results, which is correct.
> 
> Ok - I think I was mistaken when I reported that the current sources
> generate a non-0 address table for the discard wa2.C compilation
> unit.  Looking further into the "readelf -wl" output of the a.out file
> built from wa.c and wa2.c using todays gcc/binutils I get this:
> 

Carlo is right. ld is changed to work around

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-06/msg00473.html

The problem is gdb can't deal with discarded line info in different
CUs.


H.J.