Re: [RFA] Don't apply line-number tweaks for non-GCC compilers

[Mark Kettenis <kettenis at gnu dot org>]

   Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:15:02 +0200 (CEST)
   From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>

Ping!

      - GDB's stabs reader tweaks line number information, in a way that's
	not appropriate for non-GCC stabs.  Mark Kettenis posted a patch,
	and I suggested a revision; I think that's where it stands.

	  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-09/msg00234.html

   I had a follow-up patch, but I lost it when I accidentally did an rm
   -rf of my GDB working directory.  Anyway, here's a new one that
   implements Jim's suggestion.  OK?

   I'd really like to check this in on the new release branch too, since
   I promised to fix this a long time ago.

   Mark


   Index: ChangeLog
   from  Mark Kettenis  <kettenis@gnu.org>

	   * dbxread.c (process_one_symbol): Do not adjust address of first
	   N_SLINE stab for a function for code generated by non-GCC
	   compilers.


   Index: dbxread.c
   ===================================================================
   RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/dbxread.c,v
   retrieving revision 1.74
   diff -u -p -r1.74 dbxread.c
   --- dbxread.c 11 Sep 2004 10:24:46 -0000 1.74
   +++ dbxread.c 19 Oct 2004 20:45:53 -0000
   @@ -2927,11 +2927,26 @@ process_one_symbol (int type, int desc, 
	  /* Relocate for dynamic loading and for ELF acc fn-relative syms.  */
	  valu += function_start_offset;

   -      /* If this is the first SLINE note in the function, record it at
   -	 the start of the function instead of at the listed location.  */
   +      /* GCC 2.95.3 emits the first N_SLINE stab somwehere in the
   +	 middle of the prologue instead of right at the start of the
   +	 function.  To deal with this we record the address for the
   +	 first N_SLINE stab to be the start of the function instead of
   +	 the listed location.  We really shouldn't to this.  When
   +	 compiling with optimization, this first N_SLINE stab might be
   +	 optimized away.  Other (non-GCC) compilers don't emit this
   +	 stab at all.  There is no real harm in having an extra
   +	 numbered line, although it can be a bit annoying for the
   +	 user.  However, it totally screws up our testsuite.
   +
   +	 So for now, keep adjusting the address of the first N_SLINE
   +	 stab, but only for code compiled with GCC.  */
   +
	  if (within_function && sline_found_in_function == 0)
	   {
   -	  record_line (current_subfile, desc, last_function_start);
   +	  if (processing_gcc_compilation == 2)
   +	    record_line (current_subfile, desc, last_function_start);
   +	  else
   +	    record_line (current_subfile, desc, valu);
	     sline_found_in_function = 1;
	   }
	  else