Re: Bug in Fortran: DW_AT_name

[Markus Deuling <deuling at de dot ibm dot com>]

Markus Deuling schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> I try to debug a Fortan binary produced by gcc 4.3.  I get:
>
> Breakpoint 1, MAIN__ () at 
:1
> 1       
: No such file or directory.
>        in 

> (gdb) info frame
> Stack level 0, frame at 0xbfcec3e0:
> eip = 0x80485bd in MAIN__ (
:1); saved eip 0x80486c9
>
> objdump is able to read the DW_AT_name
>
> <0><b>: Abbrev Number: 1 (DW_TAG_compile_unit)
>     DW_AT_producer    : (indirect string, offset: 0x41): GNU F95 4.3.0­
>     DW_AT_language    : 14­····(Fortran 95)
>     DW_AT_name        : (indirect string, offset: 0x0): ./neg_array.F­·
>     DW_AT_comp_dir    : (indirect string, offset: 0x1b): 
> /home/deuling/fortran­
>
> but shows following error:
>
> objdump: Error: Location lists in .debug_info section aren't in 
> ascending order!
> objdump: Warning: There is an overlap [0x2c - 0xfffffffe] in .debug_loc 
> section.
> objdump: Warning: Offset 0xfffffffe is bigger than .debug_loc section size.
> objdump: Warning: There is a hole [0xfffffffe - 0x2c] in .debug_loc 
> section.
>
> C-code works fine.
>
> For my opinion this is a compiler bug in fortran. But as objdump is able 
> to recognize DW_AT_name maybe GDB should, too? What do you think ?

Hm, readelf does not show overlaps and no errors/warnings as well:

 [25] .debug_aranges    PROGBITS        00000000 0009e2 000040 00      0   0  1
 [26] .debug_pubnames   PROGBITS        00000000 000a22 000038 00      0   0  1
 [27] .debug_info       PROGBITS        00000000 000a5a 000361 00      0   0  1
 [28] .debug_abbrev     PROGBITS        00000000 000dbb 000141 00      0   0  1
 [29] .debug_line       PROGBITS        00000000 000efc 0000e3 00      0   0  1
 [30] .debug_frame      PROGBITS        00000000 000fe0 00006c 00      0   0  4
 [31] .debug_str        PROGBITS        00000000 00104c 0002db 01  MS  0   0  1
 [32] .debug_loc        PROGBITS        00000000 001327 00006f 00      0   0  1
 [33] .shstrtab         STRTAB          00000000 001396 00013f 00      0   0  1
 [34] .symtab           SYMTAB          00000000 001a78 000550 10     35  58  4
 [35] .strtab           STRTAB          00000000 001fc8 000369 00      0   0  1

So it might be a Bug in BFD library? 



--
 Markus Deuling
 GNU Toolchain for Linux on Cell BE
 deuling@de.ibm.com