Re: binutils 2.20 regressions (20091002)

[Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>]

H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>
>>> Should we include Jakub's patch on .cfi_* directives ?
>>  That's obviously highly desirable, since there won't be another official
>> binutils release before gcc-4.5.0 comes out, but of course it's risky.  It
>> looks safe-ish because a lot of it is semi-mechanically wrapping conditionals
>> around the existing code, but of course just one typo'd/wrong/missing
>> condition amongst them could end up generating bad debug info.
>>
> 
> I'd like to see testcases for those new .cfi_* directives first. We
> have no ideas how they should work without testcases.

  Good point.  A good set of testcases (including checks that old behaviour is
still correct) could go a long way toward mitigating the risk.

    cheers,
      DaveK