[Bug symtab/26243] Handle line number 0 in line table produced by clang

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

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26243

--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Burgess from comment #4)
> > Ignoring line number 0 while parsing is probably not the right answer.  If
> > we do that then instruction associated with line 0 will instead be
> > associated with the preceding line number.
> 

Hmm, I think we probably want the "ignore line number 0" approach for gdb 10,
to fix the regression in behaviour compared to gdb 9.2.  The scenario below
doesn't work with gdb 9.2 either.

> Indeed, I found a scenario where this would make a difference: ni-stepping
> through line 53.
> 
> With trunk I get:
> ...
> (gdb) 
> 0x0000000000400d13      53            if (curr->right) {
> todo.push_back(curr->right); }
> (gdb) 
> 0x0000000000400d18      53            if (curr->right) {
> todo.push_back(curr->right); }
> (gdb) 
> 0x0000000000400d1d in inorder (root=0x6031f0 <node_array>)
> (gdb) 
> 0x0000000000400d21 in inorder (root=0x6031f0 <node_array>)
> (gdb) 
> ...
> 
> But with the patch from comment 1, we have instead:
> ...
> (gdb) 
> 0x0000000000400d13      53            if (curr->right) {
> todo.push_back(curr->right); }
> (gdb) 
> 0x0000000000400d18      53            if (curr->right) {
> todo.push_back(curr->right); }
> (gdb) 
> 0x0000000000400d1d      53            if (curr->right) {
> todo.push_back(curr->right); }
> (gdb) 
> 0x0000000000400d21      53            if (curr->right) {
> todo.push_back(curr->right); }
> (gdb)
> ...

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