From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id E5930386F457; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 15:47:29 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E5930386F457
From: "vries at gcc dot gnu.org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug symtab/26243] Handle line number 0 in line table produced by
 clang
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 15:47:29 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Component: symtab
X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-26243-4717-MtAzFmR23T@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-26243-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-26243-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gdb-prs mailing list <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/options/gdb-prs>,
 <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-prs/>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/gdb-prs>,
 <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 15:47:30 -0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D26243

--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(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.

Indeed, I found a scenario where this would make a difference: ni-stepping
through line 53.

With trunk I get:
...
(gdb)=20
0x0000000000400d13      53            if (curr->right) {
todo.push_back(curr->right); }
(gdb)=20
0x0000000000400d18      53            if (curr->right) {
todo.push_back(curr->right); }
(gdb)=20
0x0000000000400d1d in inorder (root=3D0x6031f0 <node_array>)
(gdb)=20
0x0000000000400d21 in inorder (root=3D0x6031f0 <node_array>)
(gdb)=20
...

But with the patch from comment 1, we have instead:
...
(gdb)=20
0x0000000000400d13      53            if (curr->right) {
todo.push_back(curr->right); }
(gdb)=20
0x0000000000400d18      53            if (curr->right) {
todo.push_back(curr->right); }
(gdb)=20
0x0000000000400d1d      53            if (curr->right) {
todo.push_back(curr->right); }
(gdb)=20
0x0000000000400d21      53            if (curr->right) {
todo.push_back(curr->right); }
(gdb)
...

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=