Mark:
I just tried to rebuild with my interim patch in place, and found that
RTH had completely
rewritten the area. If I don't run into too many ICEs during the
rebuild of the compiler
suite (it comes and goes regularly depending on who has patched what)
I'll know
something tomorrow (Fri) about what effect his changes had on this, but
from
looking at the code, it may have the same problem. (I'm
skipping my patch for the moment.)
Richard: quick synopsis: the code in this area doesn't (didn't?) take
into account the
possibility of there being a call to __main, with the consequence that
the initial
breakpoint for main ends up at the {, rather than at the first statement
*if* the
call to __main is generated.
Donn
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Mitchell
Sent: Thu 5/25/2000 8:46 AM
To: Donn Terry
Cc: kettenis@wins.uva.nl;
Peter.Schauer@Regent.E-Technik.TU-Muenchen.DE; kingdon@redhat.com;
gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: RE: Suggested (easier) fix to
... RE: Regressions problem (200 fa ilures)
>>>>> "Donn" == Donn Terry
<donnte@microsoft.com> writes:
Donn> I can't answer why any better
than the author of the change
Donn> that started all this ;-) .
Touche.
OK, now I understand the problem -- thanks to you.
I'll look back at
why I did what I did -- and then
see if I can figure out how to fix
it.
Thanks for bearing with me on this.
--
Mark
Mitchell
mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery,
LLC
http://www.codesourcery.com