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]
Other format: [Raw text]

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


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