From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29368 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2004 17:04:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29261 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2004 17:04:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Jun 2004 17:04:32 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1BY6V3-00087Y-As for ; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:04:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:04:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: dwarf2read.c:read_partial_die question Message-ID: <20040609170429.GA29996@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20040609154226.GC11156@white> <20040609154544.GA27720@nevyn.them.org> <20040609160526.GB11598@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040609160526.GB11598@white> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00075.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 12:05:26PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > > > This is the comment in the testcase (twice.exp) that is producing this > > > behavior > > > # Test that GDB can still detect whether we have line numbers > > > # even if we're executing code in an include file. > > > > Check what GCC is emiting (readelf -wi); do you have a compilation unit > > missing these attributes, or have we lost track of them somehow? > > Whoa, readelf is a great command! I was trying to read the assembly file > when I wrote the patch :) Since I don't know what part of this file to > send in, the whole thing is below. > > Basically, I just run the twice.exp testcase, and then I ran GDB on > twice-tmp. Here's the output. It looks as if the compiler is not > outputting the DW_AT_comp_dir directive for this file. Is this a bug in > GCC? I don't think so. There's an absolute path so DW_AT_comp_dir would not add any information. Is there some reason we can't cope with this? -- Daniel Jacobowitz