Re: Binutils 2.20.1

[Bob Plantz <plantz at cds1 dot net>]

On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 14:12 +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> there was a number of glitches in the binutils release 2.20 so it makes sense to make a new minor release.
> 
> I (my fault) haven't actively tracked all the patches that are candidate for the release branch but
> many have been committed and this is time to ask if you want a particular patch to be put in the next
> minor release.
> 
> I'd like to release 2.20.1 before February.
> 
> Tristan. 

I apologize for not knowing how to get glitches fixed in gas, but I
would like to see a minor problem fixed. I filed bug report #11122 with
bugzilla about this.

The problem arises when compiling a C source file and using -Wa,-adhl to
get a C source listing with the assembly language. The C source lines
are numbered from 0. They should be numbered from 1. The .loc gas
directives correctly number from 1.

Example:
Using
   gcc -O0 -g -Wa,-adhl nada.c > nada.lst
to get gas listing embedded in C source code, C source code lines are numbered
from 0, .loc in gas starts with 1. Previous gas (4.19) started both at 1.

Example:
   1              		.file	"nada.c"
   9              	.Ltext0:
  10              	.globl foo
  12              	foo:
  13              	.LFB0:
  14              		.file 1 "nada.c"
   0:nada.c        **** int foo()
   1:nada.c        **** {
  15              		.loc 1 2 0
  16              		.cfi_startproc
  17 0000 55       		pushq	%rbp
  18              	.LCFI0:
  19              		.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
  20 0001 4889E5   		movq	%rsp, %rbp
  21              		.cfi_offset 6, -16
  22              	.LCFI1:
  23              		.cfi_def_cfa_register 6
   2:nada.c        ****    return 0;
  24              		.loc 1 3 0
  25 0004 B8000000 		movl	$0, %eax
  25      00
   3:nada.c        **** }
  26              		.loc 1 4 0
  27 0009 C9       		leave
  28 000a C3       		ret
  29              		.cfi_endproc
  30              	.LFE0:
  32              	.Letext0:

Again, I apologize for not having a good understanding of the
change system, so perhaps doing something inappropriate here.

--Bob