From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jason Merrill <jason_merrill@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, mark@codesourcery.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: fix sjlj eh vs dwarf2 debug
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 03:19:00 -0000
Message-id: <m3heuzuliy.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com>
References: <20010814121628.A30538@redhat.com> <20010814121921.A8417@redhat.com> <m3snetskrt.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com> <3B847864.7060106@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg01337.html

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:

>>>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 12:16:28PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> 
>>>> * dwarf2out.c (dwarf2out_frame_finish): Never emit .eh_frame
>>>> if USING_SJLJ_EXCEPTIONS.
>> 
>>> Actually, I take that back.  Now that we are (or may be) encoding
>>> .eh_frame data in non-standard ways, we should probably not try to
>>> emit only one of .eh_frame or .debug_frame.  That way the debugger
>>> doesn't have to care about whatever funnies we do with augmentation.
>> 
>>> Jason, what are your thoughts?
>> That makes sense to me.  What do gdb folks think?

> This won't affect GDB(1). I'd go with what ever the current interpretation
> of the standards are.

.debug_frame is part of the DWARF 2 standard; .eh_frame is our own
modification of that format for use in a loaded section, for which there is
no standard but gcc.

Jason