This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: Support DW_TAG_entry_point
- From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, GDB <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:09:40 +0200
- Subject: Re: RFC: Support DW_TAG_entry_point
- References: <20090320220041.GA26894@lucon.org> <email@example.com> <20090423061003.GA7552@adacore.com>
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:10:03 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:13:27 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > This looks strange to me. IIUC, there's no requirement that
> > DW_TAG_entry_point be the first child.
> That was my main observation at the time.
I guess the whole patch tagets just one compiler's (ifort's?) use of
DW_TAG_entry_point. DWARF standard also says neither that DW_TAG_entry_point
should be a child of DW_TAG_subprogram nor that it should not have its own
DW_AT_high_pc. Therefore assuming DW_TAG_entry_point will be the first child
DIE is ensured for the target compiler this patch was made for.
Still this patch is a clear improvement of the current GDB state while having
no regressions. Shouldn't be a more complete support left as a possible next
patch on top of it?
Just my $0.02,