From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13541 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2005 07:43:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 13497 invoked by uid 48); 11 Mar 2005 07:43:16 -0000 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050311074316.13495.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "tsandnes at atmel dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20041220095410.19087.tsandnes@atmel.com> References: <20041220095410.19087.tsandnes@atmel.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/19087] Overflowed address in dwarf debug line information X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg01381.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From tsandnes at atmel dot com 2005-03-11 07:43 ------- > Here is the ELF file. Runs on an ATmega128 using about 75% code space, > almost all of 32k expanded SRAM and almost all of EEPROM. I hope that this > helps. Please treat the file as confidential. > > BTW, I sent this from home because I didn't have the laptop with me at work > today and figured this would help with the time zone differences, etc. > Please make sure that any reply makes it to my work email in the CC. I have had a quick look at the objectfile with avr-readelf -w and found that global and static variables are in locations that are way beyond the atmega128's 4K of flash memory. It seems that flash addresses in the debuginformation are no longer subtracted by 0x800000. (The flash offset used by avr-gcc) For example, the last_baud_rate variable quite early in the objectfile is stated to be at address 0x80019c: <2><851>: Abbrev Number: 21 (DW_TAG_variable) DW_AT_name : (indirect string, offset: 0x188): last_baud_rate DW_AT_decl_file : 22 DW_AT_decl_line : 710 DW_AT_type : <2c> DW_AT_location : 5 byte block: 3 9c 1 80 0 (DW_OP_addr: 80019c) Probably, 0x19c is the correct address. If you can fix this, I think we are done. (except maybe for similar problems with the eeprom segment) Regards, Torleif -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19087