[PATCH][gdb] Fix gdb.dwarf2/varval.exp with -fPIE/-pie
Tom de Vries
Fri Aug 9 04:50:00 GMT 2019
On 08-08-19 20:04, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 11:16:44 -0600
> Tom Tromey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries <email@example.com> writes:
>> Thanks for the patch.
>> Tom> + CORE_ADDR baseaddr
>> Tom> + = ANOFFSET (objfile->section_offsets, SECT_OFF_TEXT (objfile));
>> Tom> + struct gdbarch *gdbarch = get_objfile_arch (objfile);
>> Tom> for (const auto &cand_off
>> Tom> : dwarf2_per_objfile->abstract_to_concrete[die->sect_off])
>> Tom> @@ -23220,6 +23223,8 @@ dwarf2_fetch_die_loc_sect_off (sect_offset sect_off,
>> Tom> CORE_ADDR pc_low, pc_high;
>> Tom> get_scope_pc_bounds (cand->parent, &pc_low, &pc_high, cu);
>> Tom> + pc_low = gdbarch_adjust_dwarf2_addr (gdbarch, pc_low + baseaddr);
>> Tom> + pc_high = gdbarch_adjust_dwarf2_addr (gdbarch, pc_high + baseaddr);
>> Tom> if (pc_low == ((CORE_ADDR) -1)
>> I think this test has to precede the offsetting.
Ouch, thanks for catching that.
> Yes, I agree.
> It appears to me that the test / continue in its entirety...
> if (pc_low == ((CORE_ADDR) -1)
> || !(pc_low <= pc && pc < pc_high))
> ...will need to be split with the -1 part being performed before the
> pc_low/pc_high adjustment and the other part being performed after.
Committed as attached.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 1839 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Gdb-patches