This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] Fix duplicate types for single DIE
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 16:31:31 -0700
- Subject: Re: [patch] Fix duplicate types for single DIE
- References: <20100513115029.GA27341@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
> Tom Tromey may not agree with new internal_error as expressed in
> Re: [patch] Fix dwarf2read to crash again
> I am not sure what are his specific plans; if some TRY_CATCH should be
> involved the new internal_error call should OK there.
This is a situation where we can recover without much hassle by just
allocating a new slot, so I'd just emit a complaint, and allow the
user to continue debugging.
> 2010-05-13 Jan Kratochvil <email@example.com>
> * dwarf2read.c (read_structure_type): Move set_descriptive_type after
> (read_array_type): Remove type initialization. Recheck get_die_type
> after initial die_type. Move set_die_type before set_descriptive_type.
> (read_set_type): New variable domain_type. Recheck get_die_type after
> initial die_type.
> (read_tag_pointer_type, read_tag_reference_type): New variable
> target_type. Recheck get_die_type after initial die_type.
> (read_tag_ptr_to_member_type): Recheck get_die_type after initial
> die_type and die_containing_type.
> (read_tag_const_type, read_tag_volatile_type, read_subroutine_type):
> Recheck get_die_type after initial die_type.
> (read_subrange_type): Recheck get_die_type after initial die_type.
> Move set_die_type before set_descriptive_type.
> (set_die_type): Call internal_error if DIE has some type already set.
I skimmed through the patch, and it looks reasonable. But I don't
feel comfortable approving it - don't know that file well enough
There's something I can seem to be able to understand: Why does
set_descriptive_type need to be called after set_die_type? I mean,
from a conceptual point of view, it sort of makes sense. But I can't
see how in practice changing the call order makes any difference...