This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Don't ICE on >= 64KB expressions in dwarf2out (PR debug/51695)

From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:27:03 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't ICE on >= 64KB expressions in dwarf2out (PR debug/51695)
References: <20120104180902.GE18937@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <m3mxa38eqm.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120104191313.GF18937@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com>

>>>>> "Jakub" == Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:

Jakub> Honza said that GDB doesn't support DW_TAG_dwarf_procedure though.
Jakub> We'd need to represent it as nameless artificial DW_TAG_variable
Jakub> or something similar.

I think gdb will issue a complaint if it sees one.  I'm not sure, I
don't think I've ever seen a program using this DWARF feature.

IIUC, the DW_OP_call* includes the needed DIE offset.  So, I think gdb
doesn't need to do anything for DW_TAG_dwarf_procedure except ignore it.

Doing this and eliminating the complaint is trivial.
I'm reluctant to do it without a way to test the change, though.
(And the complaint itself is harmless and not visible to users by
default anyway.)

Tom

References:
- [PATCH] Don't ICE on >= 64KB expressions in dwarf2out (PR debug/51695)
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: [PATCH] Don't ICE on >= 64KB expressions in dwarf2out (PR debug/51695)
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: [PATCH] Don't ICE on >= 64KB expressions in dwarf2out (PR debug/51695)
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]