This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH/RFA] Don't apply line-number tweaks for non-GCC compilers
- From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at sibelius dot xs4all dot nl>
- To: jimb at redhat dot com
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:59:29 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFA] Don't apply line-number tweaks for non-GCC compilers
- References: <200408141503.i7EF38O5004624@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <vt2mzzkipj2.fsf@zenia.home>
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
Date: 20 Sep 2004 16:44:33 -0500
[ That earned you a nice bounce I suppose. I've moved, and therefore
got rid of my cable. On the bright side, I've now got a decent ISP
and a fixed IP address. ]
Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl> writes:
> The line-number tweaks we do for the sake of GCC 2.95.3 mess up the
> line number info for non-GCC compilers that emit stabs. In particular
> this makes it annoying to debug code using the Sun compilers on SPARC.
> This patch attempts to fix that. Please refer to the comment in the
> code for details.
>
> I deliberately did not remove the while line-number hack. In the end
> that's what we should really do, but I still do most of my GDB work on
> systems that have GCC 2.95.3 as their default compiler, and I really
> like being able to run the testsuite on those platforms.
>
> OK?
(Thanks for finding this, Andrew.)
Is there any reason you're not testing processing_gcc_compilation,
instead of checking the last N_FUN's desc?
Other than that it's a global variable? No not really. I suppose it
was because the patch actually is a slimmed down version of a patch
that tried (and failed) to distinguish between a broken GCC and a
fixed GCC too.
Do you prefer checking processing_gcc_compilation? I suppose it's
better because it makes the intent clearer.
Mark