http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55346
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-11-15
21:42:34 UTC ---
Which gcc version exactly (svn rev or date) you were using?
I can't reproduce this on x86_64-linux with current trunk and -g -O2.
<2><68>: Abbrev Number: 4 (DW_TAG_variable)
<69> DW_AT_name : (indirect string, offset: 0x74): argno
<6d> DW_AT_decl_file : 1
<6e> DW_AT_decl_line : 4
<6f> DW_AT_type : <0x124>
<73> DW_AT_location : 0x98(location list)
...
00000098 0000000000400420 0000000000400437 (DW_OP_lit1; DW_OP_stack_value)
00000098 0000000000400437 0000000000400483 (DW_OP_reg3 (rbx))
00000098 0000000000400483 0000000000400488 (DW_OP_breg3 (rbx): -1;
DW_OP_stack_value)
00000098 0000000000400488 0000000000400491 (DW_OP_reg3 (rbx))
00000098 000000000040049f 00000000004004cc (DW_OP_reg3 (rbx))
00000098 <End of list>
The only gap in there is in between 491 and 49f, and that is the epilogue:
400491: 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 nopl 0x0(%rax)
400498: 5b pop %rbx
400499: 5d pop %rbp
40049a: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
40049c: 41 5c pop %r12
40049e: c3 retq
40049f: 90 nop
I can reproduce it with r192900 though, so I bet this is a dup of PR54693
(which after all was your testcase).
