This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: binutils 2.20 regressions (20091002)
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>
- Cc: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 08:23:17 -0700
- Subject: Re: binutils 2.20 regressions (20091002)
- References: <81CDB811-618C-41CF-8B55-88ED729082FD@adacore.com> <053C71A9-C8D0-41ED-AA31-2ECF1B0BCACF@adacore.com> <4AC61DB6.5020306@gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Dave Korn
<dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
>> Should we include Jakub's patch on .cfi_* directives ?
>
> ?That's obviously highly desirable, since there won't be another official
> binutils release before gcc-4.5.0 comes out, but of course it's risky. ?It
> looks safe-ish because a lot of it is semi-mechanically wrapping conditionals
> around the existing code, but of course just one typo'd/wrong/missing
> condition amongst them could end up generating bad debug info.
>
I'd like to see testcases for those new .cfi_* directives first. We
have no ideas how they should work without testcases.
--
H.J.