From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23615 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2011 14:36:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 23399 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Mar 2011 14:36:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_STOCKGEN,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e24smtp01.br.ibm.com (HELO e24smtp01.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.85) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:35:59 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e24smtp01.br.ibm.com with XMail ESMTP for from ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:35:55 -0300 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com ([9.18.232.109]) by e24smtp01.br.ibm.com ([10.172.0.143]) with XMail ESMTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:35:53 -0300 Received: from d24av04.br.ibm.com (d24av04.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.97]) by mailhub1.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p2TEaQwu794806 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:36:27 -0300 Received: from d24av04.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av04.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p2TEZWhM014579 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:35:32 -0300 Received: from [9.18.235.68] (dyn531331.br.ibm.com [9.18.235.68]) by d24av04.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p2TEZWaa014535 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:35:32 -0300 Message-ID: <4D91EE45.10407@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:36:00 -0000 From: Edjunior Barbosa Machado User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b1 Icedove/3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: question, re: gdb.base/label.exp References: <4D658D9B.80207@vmware.com> <4D66A1A8.2010503@vmware.com> <20110224192603.GA22762@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20110225091943.GA1314@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20110225091943.GA1314@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit x-cbid: 11032914-6842-0000-0000-0000013F0450 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00172.txt.bz2 On 02/25/2011 06:19 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:09:39 +0100, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: >> >> Jan> The question is if we say this GCC is broken (and XFAIL it or move it to >> Jan> gdb.dwarf2/) or whether GDB should use SYMBOL_VALUE_ADDRESS. >> >> Jan> I am for the latter, DWARF talks for DW_TAG_label about >> Jan> DW_AT_low_pc and not about DW_AT_decl_line. >> >> Yes, I also think that makes sense. > > Just it will not work on reload of the executable changed underneath where PCs > change as EXPLICIT_PC needs to be in charge. > > But it already does not work now for `run': > just clarifying, this means it should be fixed on gcc anyway? I also ran into the same problem on RHEL5 and, although the testcase passes ok on RHEL6, DW_AT_decl_line for label 'here' still seems incorrect (16, instead of 9). Thanks, -- Edjunior