https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
pmderodat at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #24 from pmderodat at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pmderodat
Date: Thu Nov 26 14:56:24 2015
New Revision: 230968
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230968&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
DWARF: fix loc. descr. generation for DW_AT_static_link
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #23 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The offset between the CFA and e FRAME object is now 0x90 bytes. So
> because of alignment constraints, I think we cannot assume we can have a
> constant offset (even function-dependent).
>
> This offset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #22 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #20)
>> Yeah. There wasn't much point submitting it when it wouldn't work anyhow :}
>> Also see the README.archer file. It explains some changes that are needed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #21 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #18)
> I think this is worth investigating though because it's conceptually
> much simpler than adding yet another indirection. And we should
> concentrate on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #20 from Tom Tromey ---
> Yeah. There wasn't much point submitting it when it wouldn't work anyhow :}
> Also see the README.archer file. It explains some changes that are needed.
> Also I remember thinking that the dwarf "locexpr ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #19 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to Pierre-Marie de Rodat from comment #17)
> (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #16)
> > I'm curious if you tried it on the test case in this PR.
>
> I did not, but it looks like it now works as ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Jason suggested to change DW_AT_frame_base in order to make it equal to the
> address of the FRAME object. I was not sure:
>
> 1) how to do it: location descriptions for all local variables would need
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #17 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #16)
> I'm curious if you tried it on the test case in this PR.
I did not, but it looks like it now works as expected. Here are the frame base
info for "nestee"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #16 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to Pierre-Marie de Rodat from comment #15)
> (In reply to Pierre-Marie de Rodat from comment #13)
> > [1] This patch teaches GDB how to use DW_AT_static_link in order to find the
> > frame correspondi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #15 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
(In reply to Pierre-Marie de Rodat from comment #13)
> [1] This patch teaches GDB how to use DW_AT_static_link in order to find the
> frame corresponding to the lexically enclosing scope. I think I w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
Pierre-Marie de Rodat changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||derodat at adacore dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #14 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
Created attachment 34868
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34868&action=edit
patch to generate DWARF-compliant DW_AT_static_link attributes
gcc/
* tree-nested.c (finalize_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Jun 6 08:13:24 2014
New Revision: 211308
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211308&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/53927
* function.c (instantiate_decls): Process the s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> OK, I'm attaching the patchlet. I can submit it when stage #1 opens.
I obviously missed one stage #1, but this is now done:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg00573.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou 2013-02-01
22:20:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 29333
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29333
patch to tweak the static chain at -O0
* function.c (instantiate_decls): Process the s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2013-02-01
22:16:47 UTC ---
> I think this would be a nice addition.
OK, I'm attaching the patchlet. I can submit it when stage #1 opens.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #8 from Tom Tromey 2013-02-01 18:22:21
UTC ---
> Yes, but you can do something useful even with this value of
> DW_AT_static_link, albeit not exactly what DWARF means.
Regardless, I think GCC should emit correct DWARF.
> I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill 2013-01-31
23:23:01 UTC ---
I think these two meanings of DW_AT_static_link could be compatible if we
changed nestee's DW_AT_frame_base to point to the FRAME object, i.e. CFA-24.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2013-01-31
22:34:02 UTC ---
> The idea is you can determine which instance by computing the static link,
> then unwind the stack and look for the corresponding CFA.
> The test case here is supposed to conf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Jason M
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #4 from Tom Tromey 2013-01-31 19:40:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I don't see the problem. On both i686 and x86_64 'p self_call' prints 1,
> which
> matches the value returned by the function, so debugging seems to be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #1 from Tom Tromey 2013-01-24 20:24:18
UTC ---
It seems that I read the wrong frame info in my original report.
However, the bug still exists. Here is a new and hopefully more
correct example showing the bug.
I used a relat
25 matches
Mail list logo
