This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Stabs debugging info changes between 2.6 series and 2.9.x/2.10.x



    Hi everyone,

  I was wondering if anyone here might have a spare clue for me about
the problems I'm having getting debugging info out of gcc 2.95.3 that I
want to be compatible with a version of gdb 4.17 that is supplied by
Wind River Systems with their VxWorks embedded OS for power pc.

  The problem relates to differences in the stabs output by the 2.6
versions of gas and ld (as provided by WRS) as compared to those output
by recent binutils versions; I've tested 2.9.x and 2.10.x (I forget the
exact revisions) versions of binutils, and found they behave the same.

  What seems to be the problem is that the n_values of FUN, LBRAC and
RBRAC stabs appear to be relative to the start of the current function,
rather than the start of the file/section....   I compiled a test file
to sourcecode with 2.95.3, and then tried assembling it with both 2.6
gas and 2.9 gas; I see differences like this using objdump --stabs:

34     FUN    0      0      00000044 0      
35     FUN    0      12     00000044 1172   test2__Fv:F(0,1)

  That's the end of one function (dummy FUN) and the start of the
second function in my .s file with 2.6; with 2.9.x I see:

34     FUN    0      0      00000044 0      
35     FUN    0      12     00000000 1172   test2__Fv:F(0,1)
                            ^^^^^^^^
and this also shows up as

[end of preceding function]
} /* 0x44 */
int test2__Fv ()
{ /* 0x44 */
  /* file C:/SCM/AATC/VSC/code/SystemManager/test1.cpp line 12 addr 0x44 */
  { /* 0x50 */
    int i /* 0xc */;
    int sum /* 0x8 */;

from 2.6, and 

} /* 0x44 */
int test2__Fv ()
{ /* 0x0 */              <--- Wrong FUN!
  { /* 0xc */            <--- Wrong LBRAC!
    int i /* 0xc */;
    int sum /* 0x8 */;

from 2.9/2.10 series.

  Has anyone got any idea what's going on here?  I couldn't see anything
obvious in the ChangeLogs.

    cheers, 
        DaveK
-- 
 All your base are belong to us!


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]