subject:"\[Bug target\/17994\] avr\-gcc does not output a dwarf2 .debug

[Bug target/17994] avr-gcc does not output a dwarf2 .debug_frame section

2011-08-02 Thread Torleif.Sandnes at atmel dot com

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17994 --- Comment #10 from Torleif.Sandnes at atmel dot com 2011-08-02 20:46:09 UTC --- I am on vacation, but will be back 8th August. Torleif Sandnes

[Bug target/17994] avr-gcc does not output a dwarf2 .debug_frame section

2011-08-02 Thread rth at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17994 Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug target/17994] avr-gcc does not output a dwarf2 .debug_frame section

2011-02-16 Thread anitha.boyapati at atmel dot com

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17994 --- Comment #8 from Anitha Boyapati anitha.boyapati at atmel dot com 2011-02-16 08:20:03 UTC --- Created attachment 23360 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23360 Initial fix that emits the output shown in comment 5 (In reply to

[Bug target/17994] avr-gcc does not output a dwarf2 .debug_frame section

2011-02-16 Thread rth at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17994 --- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-16 18:04:08 UTC --- Going by the internals document, INCOMING_FRAME_SP_OFFSET is already defined but it is not used anywhere (in my patch). Certainly it's going to be used by

[Bug target/17994] avr-gcc does not output a dwarf2 .debug_frame section

2011-02-15 Thread rth at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17994 Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rth at gcc dot

[Bug target/17994] avr-gcc does not output a dwarf2 .debug_frame section

2010-12-29 Thread anitha.boyapati at atmel dot com

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17994 --- Comment #6 from Anitha Boyapati anitha.boyapati at atmel dot com 2010-12-29 13:35:34 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) Looks like to get call-stack debug info, all we require to do is define INCOMING_RETURN_ADDR_RTX. In AVR, since the

[Bug target/17994] avr-gcc does not output a dwarf2 .debug_frame section

2010-12-28 Thread anitha.boyapati at atmel dot com

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17994 Anitha Boyapati anitha.boyapati at atmel dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug target/17994] avr-gcc does not output a dwarf2 .debug_frame section

2010-12-28 Thread anitha.boyapati at atmel dot com

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17994 --- Comment #5 from Anitha Boyapati anitha.boyapati at atmel dot com 2010-12-29 07:08:33 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) And this gives an ICE in dwarf2out_frame_debug_expr(). Modifying the above function to pre decrement the stack pointer

[Bug target/17994] avr-gcc does not output a dwarf2 .debug_frame section

2009-10-23 Thread tsandnes at atmel dot com

--- Comment #3 from tsandnes at atmel dot com 2009-10-23 11:41 --- I tried gcc 4.3.2 from the WinAVR distribution and also avr-gcc 4.4.1. The short story is: There is call frame information there, but not enough. Specifically, the Call Frame instructions to reconstruct the pc to unwind

[Bug target/17994] avr-gcc does not output a dwarf2 .debug_frame section

2009-08-20 Thread eric dot weddington at atmel dot com

--- Comment #2 from eric dot weddington at atmel dot com 2009-08-20 22:40 --- Hi Torleif, Please check more recent versions such as 4.3.2, 4.3.3, or 4.4.0. There are .debug_frame sections in there, but I don't know if it contains the information that you're looking for. Thanks, Eric

[Bug target/17994] avr-gcc does not output a dwarf2 .debug_frame section

2005-07-27 Thread giovannibajo at libero dot it

-- Bug 17994 depends on bug 19885, which changed state. Bug 19885 Summary: [4.0/4.1 Regression] avr dwarf-2 support is broken for head 4.0/4.1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19885 What|Old Value |New Value

[Bug target/17994] avr-gcc does not output a dwarf2 .debug_frame section

2005-05-06 Thread bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de

--- Additional Comments From bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de 2005-05-06 13:59 --- Hi, I have been reviewing PR19885 and come to the following conclusions: 1.) As expected, Torleif is right: I can confirm that the problem exists, 2.) it should, however, probably be called