This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [patch, mips, stabs] Fix stabs failures in GCC testsuite
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Steve Ellcey <sellcey at imgtec dot com>, <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 09:44:22 +0100
- Subject: Re: [patch, mips, stabs] Fix stabs failures in GCC testsuite
- References: <a4320a50-094e-4cd7-bb78-d7b7864d1bab at BAMAIL02 dot ba dot imgtec dot org> <87wqrh3te1 dot fsf at talisman dot default> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1305022343210 dot 26443 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1305032053040 dot 26443 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk>
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@codesourcery.com> writes:
> On Fri, 3 May 2013, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>> because I think all this is really papering over the problem of forgetting
>> the label state across a section switch. This happens implicitly for
>> these .stab directives (that are also seldom used these days), but I
>> reckon I saw a case where it mattered for explicit section switches and
>> had to be worked around somehow. It would be good to have some thought as
>> to how to do this properly some day.
>
> However after some further thinking I believe a good less-effort solution
> for GCC might be to produce a .insn directive after any label considered a
> code entry point, where GAS supports the pseudo-op. This would avoid
> surprises in case something else turned out to clear the instruction mode
> again. What do you think?
I think that's going in the wrong direction. If we find a specific
"real-world" case that isn't being handled correctly, we should fix
it in GAS, so that it works with both compiler and hand-written code.
Thanks,
Richard