--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 22:40 ---
Fixed on the trunk.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 22:03 ---
Subject: Bug 40573
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 30 22:03:27 2009
New Revision: 149120
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149120
Log:
PR debug/40573
* dwarf2out.c (gen_formal_paramet
--- Comment #9 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 18:59 ---
Subject: Re: DWARF for inlined subroutines refers to the
outlined copy
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 06:13:16PM -, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Weird, the difference I get with the patch on the testcase at -O2
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 18:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=18102)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18102&action=view)
diff
Weird, the difference I get with the patch on the testcase at -O2 -g is
attached.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 17:52 ---
Subject: Re: DWARF for inlined subroutines refers to the
outlined copy
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 04:29:25PM -, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 16:29 ---
Created an attachment (id=18101)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18101&action=view)
gcc45-pr40573.patch
Does this patch do what you wanted to see?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i
--- Comment #5 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 14:21 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Hmm, I tought GCC was doing the same thing for years. So we need
> abstract function for each inline?
Why? I think we each inlined copy (and the outlined copy) to refer to the one
abstract
--- Comment #4 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 14:19 ---
It looks like you're right. Jan K. recently added support to GDB to attach the
unreferenced children of abstract DIEs to each concrete instance, and that
caused my existing test case to fail in a new way.
--
drow a
