This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Set correct source location for deallocator calls
- From: Bryce McKinlay <bmckinlay at gmail dot com>
- To: Dehao Chen <dehao at google dot com>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, David Li <davidxl at google dot com>, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 17:32:28 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Set correct source location for deallocator calls
- References: <CAO2gOZXfnETUe4wqjT7p6fd61hXreu9PDfqKxNz+HxpE0E7K0g@mail.gmail.com> <CAO2gOZX_hZ1m0xKvxUg+6gWTOX4V5ok-vvCEg3Vhfpt=qXj8-g@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc00wud5Oa3k51ntm8KeZHZnfm4rpnBsOJjURZMcoqFdTA@mail.gmail.com> <50228C38.5080703@redhat.com> <CAO2gOZUbkTsnJ2fwgeNhcRmxkzzJEifECeiF=_YRUjeKDeRMdA@mail.gmail.com> <502294A1.3060800@redhat.com> <50243480.7090803@redhat.com> <CAO2gOZURCuWUk2MVwCwmwrijNzWxJt3q=HUpU7=Qv6zB9e-uqA@mail.gmail.com> <50254A50.8070208@redhat.com> <CAO2gOZXhHuFGJ0z=jvkYKZ84EoDaPSYVjxS7QzGore56SyhWyQ@mail.gmail.com> <50255B35.9020705@redhat.com> <CAO2gOZWe+qMrVyvOoo7Ek-di0NKZxxU4Z=pqrDCqqCCAfctZOw@mail.gmail.com> <50258712.4070002@redhat.com> <CAO2gOZUQQjmKtooyXXAfgFoNVbeNwtT+P=E7pQ6jC=e07Nsr2g@mail.gmail.com> <CAO2gOZX-Gn+b6LEzps5zxhgmwQWcJ-zFqG=a7hesW6fbVyxZYQ@mail.gmail.com> <502E6774.8050609@redhat.com> <CAO2gOZWhueDAShNLbNcJpkHA6QqXk1LNZhEMFvfT77aTZTCH9w@mail.gmail.com> <503F7876.7030606@redhat.com> <503F84A9.8010504@redhat.com> <503F95D8.5010506@redhat.com> <CAO2gOZUxD9-Y3O6iS22HNEHUWaH=0Cm97FZ+KHmhkLmCzahVAA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Dehao Chen <dehao@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 08/30/2012 08:20 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> Is the problem simply that the logic to
>>> scan the assembly code isn't present in the libgcj testsuite?
>>
>> Yes, exactly.
>
> For this case, I don't think that we want a testcase to rely on
> addr2line in the system. So how about that that we add a test when
> assembly scan is available in libgcj testsuit?
Once Ian Lance Taylor's libbacktrace patch is integrated (see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-08/msg00317.html), we'll be able to get
rid of the code that calls addr2line from libgcj.
So, I think it would be fine to write a Java test case using
Throwable.getStackTrace(). Whichever approach is easiest for you is
fine.
Bryce