[Bug symtab/25950] [debug-names] Handle no "Hash Lookup Table"

["cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25950

--- Comment #3 from Sourceware Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Tom Tromey <tromey@sourceware.org>:

https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=b371f07c47c73d9597f74f87bc6e22ba04db1963

commit b371f07c47c73d9597f74f87bc6e22ba04db1963
Author: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
Date:   Sat Dec 2 13:18:13 2023 -0700

    Rewrite .debug_names reader

    This rewrites the .debug_names reader to follow the spec.

    Since it was first written, gdb's .debug_names writer has been
    incorrect -- while the form of the section has been ok, the contents
    have been very gdb-specific.

    This patch fixes the reader side of this equation, rewriting the
    reader to create a cooked index internally -- an important detail
    because it allows for the deletion of a lot of code, and it means the
    various readers will agree more often.

    This reader checks for a new augmentation string.  For the time being,
    all other producers are ignored -- the old GDB ones because they are
    wrong, and clang because it does not emit DW_IDX_parent.  (If there
    are any other producers, I'm unaware of them.)

    While the new reader mostly runs in a worker thread, it does not try
    to distribute its work.  This could be done by partitioning the name
    table.  The parent computations could also be done in parallel after
    all names have been read.  I haven't attempted this.

    Note that this patch temporarily regresses gdb.base/gdb-index-err.exp.
    This test writes an index using gdb -- but at this particular stage,
    gdb cannot read the indexes it creates.  Rather than merge the patches
    into a mega-patch, I've chosen to just accept this temporary
    regression.

    In v1 of this patch, I made the new reader more strict about requiring
    .debug_aranges.  In v2, I've backed this out and kept the previous
    logic.  This solved a few test failures, though it's arguably not the
    right approach.

    Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25950

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.