Re: Simple but crucial bug fix to gdb

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 03:56:32PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
>
>Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com> writes:
>> Irrelevant to the fact that his compiler may not be doing the right
>> thing, GDB should not be dumping core.
>
>That's absolutely true.
>
>> I sincerely expect that you provide us with the "more correct" fix asap.
>
>Please, don't be upset.  I can't provide a more correct fix without
>understanding the user's situation more.  I asked him a question in a
>message before the one I sent you, and I'm waiting to see what he
>says.
>
>Each partial symbol table object has an address range, textlow and
>texthigh, which is supposed to enclose all the functions it covers.
>If that address range is not set correctly, then GDB may not be able
>to find the full symbols for a given text address.
>
>The user has a stabs file which manages to get textlow_not_set cleared
>(indicating that pst->textlow has been set), while pst is zero.  This
>is very curious --- if the pst is zero, which textlow was it that got
>set?
>
>There's something very odd (or, as Daniel would have me say, even
>odder than usual) going on here.  Rather than slap a test for null
>over the problem and have it disappear, I want to try to understand
>what's going on.
>
>If you've got scurvy, you want limes, not spare teeth.

Is there some reason why you are not responding to the part of the
analysis which points to pst being guarded against NULL earlier in the
file?  Why is it ok to do this at one point and not ok a few lines
later?  Does SOFUN_ADDRESS_MAYBE_MISSING have some bearing on this
or is the existing code actually broken?

cgf