Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix .gdb_index with Ada

[Tom Tromey <tromey@adacore.com>]

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de> writes:

Tom> The gdb.base/c-linkage-name.exp FAIL does look relevant to this
Tom> series, and probably was regressed by the same offending commit.

I see this was failing before my series -- but it works in gdb 12.
So, it's one of the regressions the series was intended to fix :(

Tom> Doing:
Tom> ...
Tom> diff --git a/gdb/dwarf2/index-write.c b/gdb/dwarf2/index-write.c
Tom> index ae05946e790..0268371ec2e 100644
Tom> --- a/gdb/dwarf2/index-write.c
Tom> +++ b/gdb/dwarf2/index-write.c
Tom> @@ -1167,7 +1167,6 @@ write_cooked_index (cooked_index_vector *table,
Tom>              minimal symbols anyway, so including it in the index is
Tom>              usually redundant -- and the cases where it would not be
Tom>              redundant are rare and not worth supporting.  */
Tom> -         continue;
Tom>         }

Tom>        gdb_index_symbol_kind kind;
Tom> ...
Tom> fixes the FAIL, so is this one of the "rare and not worth supporting"
Tom> cases you're referring to?

I thought that was necessary to avoid redundancy in the index, but I see
now it isn't, or at least not in that way.  I'm looking again at why the
new indices are larger in general.

Tom