http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42288
Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42288
Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
--- Comment #6 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-15 17:36 ---
tromey rth: sorry... yeah, I tested the aranges patch and it worked for me.
but it isn't clear we will need it now, we're discussing some form of caching
w/ gdb rather than using the index sections
rth ok. i'll leave
--- Comment #5 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 17:58 ---
FWIW, I know that this patch will not affect the CVS gdb,
because that gdb never reads the .debug_aranges section.
I'll try this out using my branch today.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42288
--- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-07 15:57 ---
Yes, that's exactly what I would like. Thanks.
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-07 16:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=19249)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19249action=view)
Proposed patch
For the record, this is all that's needed for the above output.
I see quite a few gdb regressions vs
--- Comment #1 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-06 22:31 ---
Reasonable.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #2 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-07 02:04 ---
To be sure, you're keying off having *some* aranges entry with a reference
to a given CU in the debug_info section? So:
Contents of the .debug_aranges section:
Length: 28
Version:
