From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-339163-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8322 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2010 08:53:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 8311 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Dec 2010 08:53:16 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_GD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 08:53:12 +0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug debug/46749] gcc.dg/debug/pr41893-1.c -gdwarf-2 testsuite failures on darwin
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: debug
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-46749-4-nwGe4uowCm@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-46749-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-46749-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 08:53:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-12/txt/msg00146.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749

--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2010-12-02 08:52:14 UTC ---
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
> 
> --- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-01 22:06:23 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > 
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
> > > 
> > > --- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-01 21:34:19 UTC ---
> > > splitting the command into compile and link steps will intentionally remove the
> > > dsymutil step -  thus making the problem 'go away' ...
> > > 
> > > dsymutil should _only_ be called if there is a source file on the c/l 
> > > (which would have its object deleted and thus be unavailable for debug).
> > 
> > Huh, ok.  But the spec seems to call it unconditionally in the 
> > link-command-spec when -g is visible.  At least I can't see how
> > a "source file" is matched (and we now definitely do find object
> > files as source for the link step).
> 
> it is matched (with the noted hacky & buggy behavior) by the list of suffixes.
> 
> > And the issue is probably that we match on the intermediate link
> > command but execute only after that is finished.
> 
> OK
> 
> > Well, that dsymutil hack looks like a hack.
> 
> yeah - it's on my TODO (pr43751).
> FWIW, some time ago, I did enquire about the difficulty of adding an
> intentional additional post-link phase, with the feedback that it was prob. not
> easy.

I thought about adding it to the collect-ld script instead.

Why do we want it only if there is a .c source available?  That doesn't
make sense to me ... but i have no idea what dsymutil is supoosed to do,
so ...