Re: _bfd_dwarf2_find_nearest_line returns wrong filename

[Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>]

Hi Andreas,

> 2002-12-23  Andreas Schwab  <schwab@suse.de>
> 
> 	* dwarf2.c (struct dwarf2_debug): Add relocs and reloc_count.
> 	(find_rela_addend): Take pointer to struct dwarf2_debug instead of
> 	section and symbols.  Cache reloc section there.  Don't check
> 	section in reloc, just compare offset.
> 	(read_indirect_string): Use find_rela_addend to relocate string
> 	offset.
> 	(parse_comp_unit): Adjust call to find_rela_addend.  Don't
> 	advance to next debug section until after
> 	comp_unit_find_nearest_line has been called.

Approved - please apply.

However ...

> +      if (stash->reloc_count <= 0)
> +	return 0;
>      }

As a minor optimisation, wouldn't it be better to move this test
outside of the "if (stash->relocs == NULL)" block, so that if
stash->reloc_count is zero, the "for (relc = 0; .." loop will not be
executed on a second or subsequent visit to the function ?


> -  for (relc = 0; relc < reloc_count; relc++)
> -    if (relocs[relc]->address == offset
> -	&& (*relocs[relc]->sym_ptr_ptr)->flags & BSF_SECTION_SYM
> -	&& strcmp ((*relocs[relc]->sym_ptr_ptr)->name,
> -		   ".debug_abbrev") == 0)
> +  for (relc = 0; relc < stash->reloc_count; relc++)
> +    if (stash->relocs[relc]->address == offset)

Also - is it safe to drop the test of the reloc's symbol pointer ?

Finally - would it be possible to develop a testcase to check the
patch's behaviour ?

Cheers
        Nick