This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: path for gdb/dwarf2read.c, support 16-bit targets in dwarf-2
Andrew Cagney wrote:
> As far as I know, the dwarf2 and elf information are both ment to be
> self contained. There shouldn't be any need to refer to some arbitrary
> bfd table to determine what is going on. If the info says that an
> address is 16 bits for a given section then it sounds like GDB should
> just believe it.
> As JimK suggested:
> > Or to put it another way, specifically what went wrong on the 68HC11
> > if you didn't change dwarf2read.c? If it was just the "Dwarf Error:
> > bad address size" error, what happens if you just comment out that
> > check?
> Rather than diging values out of archures I think the possibility of:
> cu_header.address_size < elf-header.address_size
> should be documented as being just as legetimate (sarcasm :-) as:
> cu_header.address_size > elf-header.address_size
> and the check either replaced or removed.
Ok, lets remove the strange test (it does not exist in bfd/dwarf2.c
nor in readelf.c...)
2000-03-21 Stephane Carrez <firstname.lastname@example.org>
* dwarf2read.c (dwarf2_build_psymtabs_hard): Do not check
the dwarf address size against elf address size.
--- /src/gnu/cygnus/gdb/gdb/dwarf2read.c Sat Mar 4 11:38:38 2000
+++ gdb/dwarf2read.c Tue Mar 21 20:50:13 2000
@@ -980,12 +980,6 @@ dwarf2_build_psymtabs_hard (objfile, mai
(long) (beg_of_comp_unit - dwarf_info_buffer));
- if (address_size < address_significant_size)
- error ("Dwarf Error: bad address size (%ld) in compilation unit header (offset 0x%lx + 11).",
- (long) cu_header.addr_size,
- (long) (beg_of_comp_unit - dwarf_info_buffer));
/* Read the abbrevs for this compilation unit into a table */
dwarf2_read_abbrevs (abfd, cu_header.abbrev_offset);