From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23310 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2002 19:26:02 -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 23193 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2002 19:26:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.red-bean.com) (66.244.67.22) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Sep 2002 19:26:01 -0000 Received: (from jimb@localhost) by zenia.red-bean.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g8GJBrH08522; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 14:11:53 -0500 To: "H. J. Lu" Cc: Earl Chew , gdb@sources.redhat.com, drow@mvista.com Subject: Re: Mystified by "Internal error: pc 0x89f21e10 read in psymtab, but not in symtab References: <3D825BB5.48CFAFAB@agilent.com> <20020913220110.GA22097@nevyn.them.org> <3D8269C8.8E33C4AC@agilent.com> <20020913225151.GA24869@nevyn.them.org> <3D8270FF.3086EA5C@agilent.com> <20020914013314.GB31038@nevyn.them.org> <3D84AAAD.6090706@agilent.com> <20020915160306.GA31994@nevyn.them.org> <20020915133938.B19112@lucon.org> <3D85614B.8010701@agilent.com> <20020916070335.A1149@lucon.org> From: Jim Blandy Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:26:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20020916070335.A1149@lucon.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.90 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00211.txt.bz2 Yes, it looks like my patch was broken. The stupid thing is, I never actually went on to do the rest of the work that patch was supposed to prepare GDB for, so its effect has been entirely deleterious. :( H. J.'s trademark bitterness aside, I do care that my patch broke GDB. I don't remember ever seeing his bug report and patch before; I must have missed them. I apologize for the trouble that has caused. Since I don't have any plans to proceed with the work I sketched out in: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2001-10/msg00304.html in the immediate future, it makes sense to me to simply revert my patch. If I start the work again, I can always re-submit the patch, but with the problem H. J. and Earl found corrected. Can anyone come up with a test for this that one could run on Linux native? "H. J. Lu" writes: > On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 09:42:51PM -0700, Earl Chew wrote: > > H. J. Lu wrote: > > > That patch is broken. See > > > > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2002-03/msg00197.html > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2002-03/msg00202.html > > > > > > Unfortunately, no one seems to care. > > > > I care, I care! > > > > How eerie. I wrote a set of changes this morning, and now comparing > > with your changes --- it's uncanny how close they are. > > > > I enclose my patches below for you to peruse. I have some questions > > regarding some minor differences: > > > > a. I figured it was better in general to invoke the relocation function > > pointer with the section offset structure, and let each > > implementation figure out what relocations are required. I > > thought that some implementations (in the future) might cache > > things other than text locations (eg data locations). > > I don't think it helps since objfile_relocate only does offset. If you > pass delta, it is no longer symmetric. You don't want to use the same > function to do more than one thing here. You can always change it > together when you modify objfile_relocate later. > > > > > b. In dbxread.c, I initialise the relocate_symtab pointer in > > start_psymtab _and_ end_psymtab (where the code loops and allocates > > new psymtabs and copies values across). > > > > Your patch doesn't initialise the function pointer here, and I > > believe that this will result in an uninitialised field. > > I might miss that one. > > > H.J.