This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
[PATCH RFA] dbxread.c: Complain when local symbols are discarded
- From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 17:06:17 -0700
- Subject: [PATCH RFA] dbxread.c: Complain when local symbols are discarded
I've found that some older versions of gcc incorrectly output N_LSYM
entries after the corresponding (enclosing) N_LBRAC entry. The real
fix for this problem is to patch gcc with the following patch from
Richard Henderson:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-12/msg00870.html
However, it seems to me that GDB should not be silently discarding
local symbols, hence the reason for the new complaint.
Okay to commit?
* dbxread.c (discarding_local_symbols_complaint): New complaint.
(process_one_symbol): Complain about discarding local symbols
due to a misplaced N_LBRAC entry.
Index: dbxread.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/dbxread.c,v
retrieving revision 1.32
diff -u -p -r1.32 dbxread.c
--- dbxread.c 24 Apr 2002 08:00:54 -0000 1.32
+++ dbxread.c 8 May 2002 23:54:30 -0000
@@ -203,6 +203,9 @@ struct complaint repeated_header_complai
struct complaint unclaimed_bincl_complaint =
{"N_BINCL %s not in entries for any file, at symtab pos %d", 0, 0};
+
+struct complaint discarding_local_symbols_complaint =
+{"misplaced N_LBRAC entry; discarding local symbols which have no enclosing block", 0, 0};
/* find_text_range --- find start and end of loadable code sections
@@ -2881,7 +2884,21 @@ process_one_symbol (int type, int desc,
/* Can only use new->locals as local symbols here if we're in
gcc or on a machine that puts them before the lbrack. */
if (!VARIABLES_INSIDE_BLOCK (desc, processing_gcc_compilation))
- local_symbols = new->locals;
+ {
+ if (local_symbols != NULL)
+ {
+ /* GCC development snapshots from March to December of
+ 2000 would output N_LSYM entries after N_LBRAC
+ entries. As a consequence, these symbols are simply
+ discarded. Complain if this is the case. Note that
+ there are some compilers which legitimately put local
+ symbols within an LBRAC/RBRAC block; this complaint
+ might also help sort out problems in which
+ VARIABLES_INSIDE_BLOCK is incorrectly defined. */
+ complain (&discarding_local_symbols_complaint);
+ }
+ local_symbols = new->locals;
+ }
if (context_stack_depth
> !VARIABLES_INSIDE_BLOCK (desc, processing_gcc_compilation))