This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA/stabs] Fix for line table problems (was: Re: [RFC] Gdb line table implementation tweak)
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+ at andrew dot cmu dot edu>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 04 Apr 2002 16:51:27 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFA/stabs] Fix for line table problems (was: Re: [RFC] Gdb line table implementation tweak)
- References: <200203251758.g2PHwbe31730@duracef.shout.net><3CA2A76E.8090209@cygnus.com> <20020329133508.A12204@nevyn.them.org><npeli3nl9a.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com><20020329160533.A24451@nevyn.them.org>
Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 03:59:13PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> >
> > Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> > > I think so. Want me to wait for Michael C's report first?
> >
> > If doing so wouldn't delay 5.2 too much, yes.
>
> OK, I will. Could you look over:
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-03/msg00415.html
> (the equivalent patch for DWARF-2), if you get a chance?
So, it's not that the first line number marker is *missing*, it's that
it's *misplaced*. So repositioning the line is sufficient --- we
don't need to make up an extra entry. Is that right?
If so, it seems fine, some minor comments:
Could you move the code that initializes the function range list and
the code that adds a new entry to the function range list into their
own functions?
Could check_cu_functions complain when it has to back up a line entry?