This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix gdb.base/code_elim.exp failures for PowerPC 32-bit
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: lgustavo at codesourcery dot com, Samuel Bronson <naesten at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "'gdb-patches at sourceware dot org'" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 09:43:08 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix gdb.base/code_elim.exp failures for PowerPC 32-bit
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53B28365 dot 1010508 at codesourcery dot com> <87k37ok45r dot fsf at naesten dot mooo dot com> <53BB8603 dot 6050201 at codesourcery dot com>
On 07/08/2014 06:47 AM, Luis Machado wrote:
> On 07/08/2014 02:52 AM, Samuel Bronson wrote:
>> Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com> writes:
>>> add-symbol-file gdb.base/code_elim2 0x200000 -s .data 0x210000 -s .bss 0x220000^M
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[snip]
>>> Reading symbols from gdb.base/code_elim2...warning: section .data not
>>> found in gdb.base/code_elim2^M
[snip]
>> Is tweaking the testcase really the best approach here? Shouldn't GDB
>> just be less picky?
>>
>
> Either solution is fine with me, but the warning is actually somewhat
> informative since the .data section is relatively common.
That doesn't make sense in this context. GDB is not being picky -- the
warning is coming out because the user _explicitly_ specified an
address for the .data section, not because .data is special
in any way.
--
Pedro Alves