Re: MIPS_STABS_ELF is now broken

["H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 01:55:45PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > 
> > > What advantage do you claim this has over the patches I posted (which
> > 
> > My gas change will be very small and the dwarf/stabs asm output will be
> > very similar to x86, which is well tested.
> 
> That really doesn't have any relevance.  MIPS and x86 obviously do not
> expect the same sort of debug information, either at assembly or binary
> level, or we wouldn't be here.  We are much closer to Alpha, the other
> .mdebug-supporting target; we are also now behaving like Alpha, after
> my patches.

What mdebug? We are talking stabs and dwarf here. My patch is small and
won't affect the mdebug output at all. For stabs and dwarf, FYI,
Linux/mips no longer supports mdebug, mips is closer to x86 than alpha.
BTW, I have found the debug support for alpha is much poorer than x86.
Sometimes, I have to debug the alpha bug on x86 with cross tools.

> 
> > > have already gone in on the GCC side, and which do not make GCC3
> > > require a new binutils version for stabs output)?
> > 
> > What is wrong to require a new binutils for a new gcc? Also if you do
> > 
> > # .../configure
> > # make bootstrap
> > 
> > you will need a new binutils for mips anyway.
> 
> Didn't we just have this conversation in the opposite direction?

It is ok to require a new binutils for the new gcc. But it is not ok to
require a new gcc for the new binutils. That is why my patch supports
both versions of ".file". We can always keep the file number in the
first .file if you prefer. It will make both my patches even smaller.

> 
> > > Also, your patch will be incompatible with traditional MIPS assemblers
> > > and their use of .file.  All the world is not GNU as!
> > > 
> > 
> > You haven't seen my gcc patch. How do you know it isn't compatible
> > with non gas?
> 
> Sure, you can conditionalize things specially for GAS in this regard; I
> did the same thing in the patch that went in yesterday.  But there's no
> reason to support a syntax incompatible with all existing MIPS
> compilers and all existing MIPS assemblers.

Have you looked at the mips asm output? The asm output for gas IS
DIFFERENT. What is your point?


H.J.