This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [BUG] Regression in 2.14.90 (relative to 2.13.90)
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:20:17AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:10:51AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:40:10PM +0100, Carlo Wood wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:14:59AM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > > > But sending bug reports to binutils@sources.redhat.com is just as
> > > > good. It's up to you.
> > >
> > > Ok, thanks.
> > >
> > > On 17 October I mailed this list about a bug in
> > > binutils 2.14.90. I was wondering what has
> > > happened with this report. Maybe it was lost,
> > > this being just a mailinglist etc.
> > >
> > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-10/msg00456.html
> >
> > The change is intentional. The testcase looks normal to me since
> > the discarded function is identical to the remained. Is there a
> > problem with gdb? Please follow
> >
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-06/msg00471.html
> >
>
> I took a look at the original bug report:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-10/msg00657.html
>
> The issue here is 2 functions have the same size, but slightly
> different. I don't think we can solve all those link-once debug
> problems without SHT_GROUP.
This particular problem should be easy to solve without SHT_GROUP; it
requires, however, more infrastructure to parse and rewrite the DWARF-2
data. I believe that it is always appropriate to drop
DW_TAG_subroutine dies whose PC bounds include relocations to discarded
symbols, for instance.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer