[Bug debug/101398] Multiple DW_TAG_formal_parameter DIEs for the same parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101398 --- Comment #2 from Will Cohen --- Created attachment 51141 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51141=edit The uv_irq.i file The uv_irq.i file was created from 98f7fdced2e0efb1599a37b3e57671a7884f3a25 of

[Bug debug/101398] New: Multiple DW_TAG_formal_parameter DIEs for the same parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101398 Bug ID: 101398 Summary: Multiple DW_TAG_formal_parameter DIEs for the same parameter Product: gcc Version: 11.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug debug/99654] Incorrect DW_AT_entry_pc values for inlined function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99654 --- Comment #3 from Will Cohen --- Created attachment 50480 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50480=edit Default assembly code generated by compiler Default Assembly generated by compiler to compare to the

[Bug debug/99654] Incorrect DW_AT_entry_pc values for inlined function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99654 --- Comment #2 from Will Cohen --- Created attachment 50479 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50479=edit assembly file compiled with -gno-as-locview-support Resulting assembly language file generated by: gcc -O3 -g

[Bug debug/99654] Incorrect DW_AT_entry_pc values for inlined function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99654 --- Comment #1 from Will Cohen --- Jan Kratochvil at Red Hat mentioned that the DW_AT_entry_pc values looked reasonable when -gno-as-locview-support was added to the command line. I checked and they do look more reasonable. Does this mean an

[Bug debug/99654] New: Incorrect DW_AT_entry_pc values for inlined function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99654 Bug ID: 99654 Summary: Incorrect DW_AT_entry_pc values for inlined function Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug debug/103241] Odd 0 length entries in location lists

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103241 --- Comment #12 from Will Cohen --- What is the "-dA" option? What are the .LVUS* labels referencing in the generated set_memory.s referring to? They are paired up with the .LLST* labels. From the earlier set_memory.s that appears to be

[Bug debug/103241] Odd 0 length entries in location lists

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103241 --- Comment #7 from Will Cohen --- Looking at the set_mem.s the second issue of the 0-length location entry for static_protections is coming from this bit of assembly in the set_memory.s: .byte 0x4 .uleb128 .LVL637-.LVL615

[Bug debug/103241] Odd 0 length entries in location lists

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103241 --- Comment #2 from Will Cohen --- Yes, the kernel vmlinux is too large and isn't a great reproducer for this. Need a much smaller example. Trying to compile just the linux/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c with -save-temps to provide a better view

[Bug debug/103241] Odd 0 length entries in location lists

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103241 --- Comment #3 from Will Cohen --- Created attachment 51812 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51812=edit The set_memory.s from -save-temps compilation of set_memory.c

[Bug debug/103241] Odd 0 length entries in location lists

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103241 --- Comment #5 from Will Cohen --- Created attachment 51813 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51813=edit set_memory.i from the gcc -save-temps build

[Bug debug/103241] Odd 0 length entries in location lists

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103241 --- Comment #10 from Will Cohen --- That example in comment #5 at [0x0055, 0x0055) looks different than the original example as it is referring to an argument for an inlined function. The function mentioned in the

[Bug debug/103241] New: Odd 0 length entries in location lists

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103241 Bug ID: 103241 Summary: Odd 0 length entries in location lists Product: gcc Version: 11.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: debug

[Bug debug/103134] New: Redundant DW_AT_entry_pc tags for inlined functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103134 Bug ID: 103134 Summary: Redundant DW_AT_entry_pc tags for inlined functions Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug debug/103135] New: DW_AT_high_pc 0 offset for inlined functions with a singled instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103135 Bug ID: 103135 Summary: DW_AT_high_pc 0 offset for inlined functions with a singled instruction Product: gcc Version: 11.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug debug/103134] Redundant DW_AT_entry_pc tags for inlined functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103134 --- Comment #2 from Will Cohen --- Filed a dwz bug (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28568) as an alternative was to address the redundant DW_AT_entry_pc.

[Bug debug/96937] Duplicate DW_TAG_formal_parameter in out-of-line DW_TAG_subprogram instance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96937 Will Cohen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wcohen at redhat dot com --- Comment #6

[Bug debug/96937] Duplicate DW_TAG_formal_parameter in out-of-line DW_TAG_subprogram instance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96937 --- Comment #7 from Will Cohen --- Created attachment 51963 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51963=edit Reproducer showing duplicate formal parameters from kernel probe_rom.i Compiled with following to generate probe_rom.o

[Bug demangler/103525] New: [RISCV] wrong function entry with -fpatchable-function-entry

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103525 Bug ID: 103525 Summary: [RISCV] wrong function entry with -fpatchable-function-entry Product: gcc Version: 10.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal