From 00a2e46cb0d6e817d4a4943b0348580ae21e388d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Wilson Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 22:28:06 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Fix 24 powerpc-ibm-aix4.1 gdb testsuite failures due to bad gcc debug info. * xcoffout.c (xcoffout_begin_function): Call xcoffout_block for the zero'th block. From-SVN: r20882 --- gcc/ChangeLog | 5 +++++ gcc/xcoffout.c | 10 ++++++++++ 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+) diff --git a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog index 3724b4886707..2ddab527cd19 100644 --- a/gcc/ChangeLog +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ +Wed Jul 1 22:25:43 1998 Jim Wilson + + * xcoffout.c (xcoffout_begin_function): Call xcoffout_block for + the zero'th block. + Wed Jul 1 23:12:58 1998 Ken Raeburn * h8300.c (print_operand): Delete %L support. diff --git a/gcc/xcoffout.c b/gcc/xcoffout.c index ebbd9c6c4ff9..baa0cd2ed017 100644 --- a/gcc/xcoffout.c +++ b/gcc/xcoffout.c @@ -500,6 +500,16 @@ xcoffout_begin_function (file, last_linenum) { ASM_OUTPUT_LFB (file, last_linenum); dbxout_parms (DECL_ARGUMENTS (current_function_decl)); + + /* Emit the symbols for the outermost BLOCK's variables. sdbout.c does this + in sdbout_begin_block, but there is no guarantee that there will be any + inner block 1, so we must do it here. This gives a result similar to + dbxout, so it does make some sense. */ + do_block = 0; + next_block_number = 0; + xcoffout_block (DECL_INITIAL (current_function_decl), 0, + DECL_ARGUMENTS (current_function_decl)); + ASM_OUTPUT_SOURCE_LINE (file, last_linenum); } -- 2.43.5