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 839C23858C54; Fri, 23 Sep 2022 19:38:29 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 839C23858C54
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org;
	s=default; t=1663961909;
	bh=LGOSAo2jB5O0rrqXugak47NWRluMGuDmiYqG6+mREj4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=XLyq77fQNFgfB48xXPT9PrwWiQUNNrEf27A42/ZrF2piEvhjNCoWE1w3by/5zqhR6
	 fdlpDW0uahRnyJKGXfx52yu92V7PDAtwdSh4wKo+E446upyxCb39ODQD9J6tN0ieXq
	 4Mipkb2t4XHlnDSOawr3YRv6qMohATUsZVe2guIU=
From: "tromey at sourceware dot org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug symtab/29106] new DWARF reader should de-duplicate functions
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 19:38:29 +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: tromey at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: tromey at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-29106-4717-EUp71rIlZF@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-29106-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-29106-4717@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
List-Id: <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D29106

--- Comment #3 from Tom Tromey <tromey at sourceware dot org> ---
Further searching shows that the second CU in question has:

 <1><d94e58>: Abbrev Number: 24 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
    <d94e59>   DW_AT_specification: <0xd5c48b>
    <d94e5d>   DW_AT_object_pointer: <0xd94e77>
    <d94e61>   DW_AT_low_pc      : 0x0
    <d94e69>   DW_AT_high_pc     : 0x28
    <d94e71>   DW_AT_frame_base  : 1 byte block: 9c     (DW_OP_call_frame_c=
fa)
    <d94e73>   DW_AT_call_all_tail_calls: 1
    <d94e73>   DW_AT_sibling     : <0xd94e84>

The new index seems more correct to me, and in particular the
old gdb index does:

(gdb) break intrusive_list<inferior, intrusive_base_node<inferior> >::begin=
()
const
Breakpoint 1 at 0x4ac474: intrusive_list<inferior,
intrusive_base_node<inferior> >::begin() const. (4 locations)


Whereas with the new index we get:

(gdb) break intrusive_list<inferior, intrusive_base_node<inferior> >::begin=
()
const
Breakpoint 1 at 0x4ac474: intrusive_list<inferior,
intrusive_base_node<inferior> >::begin() const. (58 locations)

So I tend to think the old gdb was missing some locations.

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