This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: binutils 2.20 regressions (20091002)
H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>
>>> Should we include Jakub's patch on .cfi_* directives ?
>> That's obviously highly desirable, since there won't be another official
>> binutils release before gcc-4.5.0 comes out, but of course it's risky. It
>> looks safe-ish because a lot of it is semi-mechanically wrapping conditionals
>> around the existing code, but of course just one typo'd/wrong/missing
>> condition amongst them could end up generating bad debug info.
>>
>
> I'd like to see testcases for those new .cfi_* directives first. We
> have no ideas how they should work without testcases.
Good point. A good set of testcases (including checks that old behaviour is
still correct) could go a long way toward mitigating the risk.
cheers,
DaveK