This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Limited success with 3.0 branch on AIX
- To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: Limited success with 3.0 branch on AIX
- From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:50:27 -0700
- Cc: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at cygnus dot com>, "Zack Weinberg" <zackw at Stanford dot EDU>, Matthew Conway <matt_conway at i2 dot com>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <200105162006.QAA25648@makai.watson.ibm.com>
On May 16, 4:06pm, David Edelsohn wrote:
> What exactly is the "gcc2_compiled." symbol used to enable in GDB?
> How much will it hurt if GDB debugs a GCC-compiled application and does
> not know it was compiled with GCC?
As noted in past email, generic_use_struct_convention() uses this
information. But, after studying the code again, I've concluded that
the value that this function returns will be the same regardless of
whether "gcc2_compiled." is defined or not.
Also, we have the following comment from symtab.h:
/* Version of GCC used to compile the function corresponding
to this block, or 0 if not compiled with GCC. When possible,
GCC should be compatible with the native compiler, or if that
is not feasible, the differences should be fixed during symbol
reading. As of 16 Apr 93, this flag is never used to distinguish
between gcc2 and the native compiler.
If there is no function corresponding to this block, this meaning
of this flag is undefined. */
unsigned char gcc_compile_flag;
So, if this comment can be believed, gdb's behavior should be the same
regardless of whether or not "gcc2_compiled." is defined.
My conclusion is that GDB won't be hurt at all (for AIX on Power or
PowerPC) if "gcc2_compiled." is left undefined.