--- Additional Comments From wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-21
00:11 ---
Fixed on mainline.
Do we need this fixed for 4.0.1? If so, this will have to wait for the branch
to unfreeze.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-21
00:06 ---
Subject: Bug 20805
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-21 00:06:36
Modified files:
gcc: dwarf2out.c
Log message:
Av
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-20
23:51 ---
Subject: Bug 20805
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-20 23:51:30
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
Log message:
Avoi
--- Additional Comments From wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-08
03:01 ---
The testcase works if the variable declaration is moved after the function.
This is the case I fixed a few weeks ago, which was breaking java debugging.
The declare_in_namespace design causes us to get two
--- Additional Comments From drow at false dot org 2005-04-07 14:39 ---
Subject: Re: Another debug info emitting bug
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:31:35PM -, drow at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I have a GDB patch that will avoid the internal error. I'll dig it up.
See:
http://sour
--- Additional Comments From drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-07 14:28
---
As for whether the debug information is correct:
- It would be preferable if the full declaration was the one outside the
function rather than inside, but I don't think there's anything in the
standar
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-07 14:11
---
It is a regression since 3.4.x in the sense that the same testcase
was debuggable by gdb.
But the main question now is I think whether what g++ 4.0 emits is correct
or not.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-07
14:03 ---
Jakub, do you know if this is a regression?
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
--- Additional Comments From drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-07 12:31
---
I have a GDB patch that will avoid the internal error. I'll dig it up.
I suppose there's room to argue that GCC's output is correct. Am I right in
thinking that the function-local extern could, in some cases
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-07 12:13
---
int *v;
int *
foo ()
{
extern int *v;
return v;
}
The section .debug_info contains:
Compilation Unit @ 0:
Length:208
Version: 2
Abbrev Offset: 0
Pointer Size: 8
<0>: Abbrev
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-07 11:58
---
Simplified testcase:
int *v;
int
*foo ()
{
extern int *v;
return static_cast (v);
}
compiled with just -g on e.g. x86-64 or i386.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From greenrd at greenrd dot org 2005-04-07 11:06
---
gdb PR 1903 has already been filed for that.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20805
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-07
05:38 ---
Since this is also a gdb bug, it should not be crashing, I would file there too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20805
--- Additional Comments From greenrd at greenrd dot org 2005-04-07 03:20
---
Created an attachment (id=8551)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8551&action=view)
gzipped testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20805
14 matches
Mail list logo
