[Bug default/27213] alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed.

["jakub at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27213

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #1)
> It doesn't help with this case. But reviewing the code I found that there
> was at least one place where we didn't hash the DW_FORM_implicit_const value
> in checksum_die meaning that two DIEs which only differed in an attribute
> (which we didn't already handle specially) using a DW_FORM_implicit_const
> with a different value (maybe a DW_AT_byte_size) could possibly hash to the
> same value.
> 
> diff --git a/dwz.c b/dwz.c
> index 308bcba..e556dfb 100644
> --- a/dwz.c
> +++ b/dwz.c
> @@ -3580,7 +3580,11 @@ checksum_die (DSO *dso, dw_cu_ref cu, dw_die_ref
> top_die, dw_die_ref die)
>           ptr += ptr_size;
>           break;
>         case DW_FORM_flag_present:
> +         break;
>         case DW_FORM_implicit_const:
> +         if (! handled)
> +           die->u.p1.die_hash
> +             = iterative_hash_object (t->values[i], die->u.p1.die_hash);
>           break;
>         case DW_FORM_flag:
>         case DW_FORM_data1:

As for this patch, I agree that something should be done about it,
but wonder if it shouldn't be
          if (!handled && die->die_ck_state != CK_BAD)
            {
              handled = true;
              die->u.p1.die_hash
                = iterative_hash_object (t->values[i], die->u.p1.die_hash);
            }

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.