[Bug debug/60339] New: gnat weird DW_AT_abstract_origin

[Bug debug/60339] New: gnat weird DW_AT_abstract_origin

[jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60339

            Bug ID: 60339
           Summary: gnat weird DW_AT_abstract_origin
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.8.2
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: debug
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
              Host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

Description of problem:
FSF GDB HEAD internal errors on reading gcc/gnatbind using -readnow.
GDB will be changed to just make a 'complaint' as GDB must not crash on invalid
DWARF file.  But still the gnat-produced DWARF seems incorrect to me.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
GNU gdb (GDB) 7.7.50.20140224-cvs (gdb-7.7 is too old)
FAIL: r208119

Steps to Reproduce:
../gcc48/configure --enable-languages=ada --enable-bootstrap
make profiledbootstrap
../fresh-new-gdb/gdb/gdb -readnow gcc/gnatbind

Actual results:
Reading symbols from gcc/gnatbind...expanding to full
symbols...dwarf2read.c:8032: internal-error: process_die: Assertion
`!die->in_process' failed.
A problem internal to GDB has been detected,
further debugging may prove unreliable.
Quit this debugging session? (y or n) _

readelf -wi gcc/gnatbind

concrete instance tree (Out-of-Line Instance):
 <1><47562>: Abbrev Number: 62 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
    <47563>   DW_AT_abstract_origin: <0x46678>
    <47567>   DW_AT_low_pc      : 0x4517e0
    <4756f>   DW_AT_high_pc     : 0x261

abstract instance tree:
 <1><46678>: Abbrev Number: 48 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
    <46679>   DW_AT_name        : atree__copy_separate_tree
    <46684>   DW_AT_inline      : 1     (inlined)
 <2><46689>: Abbrev Number: 112 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
    <4668a>   DW_AT_name        : atree__copy_separate_tree__copy_entity
    <46695>   DW_AT_low_pc      : 0x450ca0
    <4669d>   DW_AT_high_pc     : 0x3c9
 - why are specific PCs in _abstract_ instance tree?
 - BTW the tree has 301 DIEs, that seems too large for an abstract instance
tree

BTW master (4.9 - r208124) failed on GNAT internal error during bootstrap.

[Bug debug/60339] gnat weird DW_AT_abstract_origin

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60339

Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
         Resolution|---                         |WORKSFORME

--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---

> concrete instance tree (Out-of-Line Instance):
>  <1><47562>: Abbrev Number: 62 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
>     <47563>   DW_AT_abstract_origin: <0x46678>
>     <47567>   DW_AT_low_pc      : 0x4517e0
>     <4756f>   DW_AT_high_pc     : 0x261
> 
> abstract instance tree:
>  <1><46678>: Abbrev Number: 48 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
>     <46679>   DW_AT_name        : atree__copy_separate_tree
>     <46684>   DW_AT_inline      : 1     (inlined)
>  <2><46689>: Abbrev Number: 112 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
>     <4668a>   DW_AT_name        : atree__copy_separate_tree__copy_entity
>     <46695>   DW_AT_low_pc      : 0x450ca0
>     <4669d>   DW_AT_high_pc     : 0x3c9
>  - why are specific PCs in _abstract_ instance tree?

This is a non-inlined subroutine nested in an inlined subroutine, see 3.3.8.4.

>  - BTW the tree has 301 DIEs, that seems too large for an abstract instance
> tree

!!???

> BTW master (4.9 - r208124) failed on GNAT internal error during bootstrap.

Please open a separate PR for this.

[Bug debug/60339] gnat weird DW_AT_abstract_origin

[jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60339

--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
> This is a non-inlined subroutine nested in an inlined subroutine, see
> 3.3.8.4.

OK, thanks for the pointer.


> > BTW master (4.9 - r208124) failed on GNAT internal error during bootstrap.
> 
> Please open a separate PR for this.

I have seen it discussed elsewhere as a known issue.