[PATCH] PR debug/61352 back port from mainline

[PATCH] PR debug/61352 back port from mainline

[Jack Howarth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 252 bytes --]

   The attached patch is a back port of the change from
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=211067 for
gcc-4_9-branch. Bootstrap and regression tested on
x86_64-apple-darwin14 with Xcode 6.3. Okay for gcc-4_9-branch?
           Jack

[-- Attachment #2: PR61352_backport.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 603 bytes --]

2015-04-12  Jack Howarth  <howarth.at.gcc@gmail.com>

	Backport from mainline
	2014-05-29  Mike Stump  <mikestump@comcast.net>
	PR debug/61352
	* collect2.c (maybe_run_lto_and_relink): Be sure to always run
	post ld passes when lto is used.

Index: gcc/collect2.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/collect2.c	(revision 222021)
+++ gcc/collect2.c	(working copy)
@@ -848,6 +848,8 @@ maybe_run_lto_and_relink (char **lto_ld_
       fork_execute ("ld", lto_ld_argv);
       post_ld_pass (false);
     }
+  else
+    post_ld_pass (true);
 }
 \f
 /* Main program.  */

Re: [PATCH] PR debug/61352 back port from mainline

[Mike Stump]

On Apr 12, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth.at.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>   The attached patch is a back port of the change from
> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=211067 for
> gcc-4_9-branch. Bootstrap and regression tested on
> x86_64-apple-darwin14 with Xcode 6.3. Okay for gcc-4_9-branch?
>           Jack
> <PR61352_backport.diff>

Ok.

Committed revision 222835.

Re: [PATCH] PR debug/61352 back port from mainline

[Joel Brobecker]

> >   The attached patch is a back port of the change from
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=211067 for
> > gcc-4_9-branch. Bootstrap and regression tested on
> > x86_64-apple-darwin14 with Xcode 6.3. Okay for gcc-4_9-branch?
> >           Jack
> > <PR61352_backport.diff>
> 
> Ok.
> 
> Committed revision 222835.

FTR - for those who do not follow bugzilla PRs, we have found that
dsymutil is not working well at all: missing DWARF dies, SEGVs, not
working well with -gno-strict-dwarf.

As said in the PR, I don't think this is the right solution,
particularly since we don't have any control on dsymutil's quality
and features. I suggest we revert this patch, and try to understand
why GDB wasn't able to pull the debugging info from the executable
(assuming that's still an issue).

Thanks,
-- 
Joel