From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8116 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2009 23:00:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 7579 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Mar 2009 23:00:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:00:30 +0000 Received: from zps75.corp.google.com (zps75.corp.google.com [172.25.146.75]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n2PN0QlG016664 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:00:27 GMT Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wfg23.prod.google.com [10.142.7.23]) by zps75.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n2PN0PWN020908 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:00:25 -0700 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 23so267679wfg.24 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:00:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.254.6 with SMTP id b6mr51657wfi.157.1238022024931; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:00:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090325222600.GI1583@adacore.com> References: <20090325222600.GI1583@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: <8ac60eac0903251600v5bfe0808nebdef71c5f45c6cf@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: about PR gdb/10002 (extern optimized out symbols print: Address of symbol is unknown) From: Paul Pluzhnikov To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-System-Of-Record: true 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00160.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > This seems correct to me. However, the testcase itself is a little > borderline in my opinion. The test case depends on compiler's ability to optimize out reference to "missing". If the compiler couldn't do that, you'd get an unresolved symbol at link time. > The variable was not "optimized out", but was never linked in. Well, the reference to the variable was optimized out. > It's as if it really does not exist. I think it's not "as if"; it *really* doesn't. > So I don't know if GDB is really all that incorrect, here. Thoughts? I don't see anything wrong about GDB's output. -- Paul Pluzhnikov