This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix PR42454 caused regression
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 04:13:59PM -0800, Cary Coutant wrote:
> >> Looks OK, but the duplication of code from add_ranges_num isn't ideal.
> >> Maybe a new helper function would make things cleaner, something like
> >> this:
> >
> > Bootstrapped and regtested. And it generates correct compile_unit DIEs.
> >
> > Is this OK, or is Jakub's fix preferable?
>
> I've extended the aranges-fnsec-1.c test to cover this as well. Here's
> an updated patch...
I don't care either way, let Jason decide, just perhaps your function name
is way too long and some shorter one would make it more nicely formatted.
> --- testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/aranges-fnsec-1.c (revision 155407)
> +++ testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/aranges-fnsec-1.c (working copy)
> @@ -1,9 +1,10 @@
> -/* Test that .debug_aranges does not have an entry for the text
> - section if nothing went in there. */
> +/* Test that .debug_aranges and .debug_ranges do not have an entry for the
> + text section if nothing went in there. */
> /* Origin: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> */
> /* { dg-do compile } */
> -/* { dg-options "-gdwarf-2 -ffunction-sections -w" } */
> +/* { dg-options "-gdwarf-2 -ffunction-sections -w -dA" } */
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "\\.Letext0-\\.Ltext0" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "\\.Ltext0.*Offset 0x0" } } */
You could also add scan-assembler for DW_AT_ranges (that would catch this
bug).
Jakub