This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB 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: symtab.c change breaks assembly lang debugging

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 12:15:07PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > I presume the change below was meant as an optimization, but it's
> > based on a false assumption -- that you can't have line numbers
> > if you don't have block symbols.  That premise is untrue if you
> > are debugging assembly language source, where the assembler emits
> > line syms but not block syms.  This change breaks the test case
> > for assembly source debugging, gdb.asm/asm-source.exp.
> >
> > You would not have noticed, because that test only works on a few
> > targets right now (d10v being one of them).
> >
> >       Patch from Peter Schauer:
> >
> >       * symtab.c (find_pc_sect_line): If we can't find the function
> >       containing PC, we certainly won't have line number information for
> >       that location, so return zero immediately.
> <sigh>
> OK, I should have thought of that.  The problem is that this almost
> always indicates a lack of debugging information, and GDB historically
> copes very badly with not having any debugging information available.
> Aside from Jim's address range cleanups, which are certainly a good
> solution for the cases they can handle, I don't know what to do about
> this.

What need are you trying to address?  Is it, as I surmised, an optimization?
And if so, can we take it out until we think of a better way to do it?


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