On Nov  1, 2006, "Gui,Jian" <guij@cn.ibm.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Indeed, but this is an inlined call of ptrace_disabled.  What we're
>> missing is info about the clear_single_step() inlined call.  However,
>> in my kernel source tree, clear_single_step is a macro, not a
>> function, so you won't get debug info for it without -g3 and, even
>> then, you may not get any line numbers whatsoever for the function
>> that does nothing but call a macro.
> In 2.6.18.1, clear_single_step is defined as an inlined call in
> arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c (ppc64) or
> arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c (ppc32). Although it is also defined
> as macro in arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c, I think ptrace_disable is
> using its inlined call definition.

> Thanks. I've opened bug 3441 for this and attached some data.
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3441

> Please let me know if more info is needed.

Thanks, I've located the problem.  I missed a hunk when backporting
the patch that was meant to add this debug info; one of the hunks in
the original patch translated to two identical changes elsewhere, and
the second hunk in the same file had to be applied to a completely
different piece of code that I didn't recognize back then.  As a
result, we ended up without the desired info in many cases.  The patch
below is a fix, that brings in the last hunk in the patch to
tree-inline.c in the GCC trunk that generated revision 102379.

Jakub, do you want a patch for the patch file, or is this good enough?
I guess we need a bug report in Red Hat's bugzilla to get a fix into
some RHEL 4 update, right?

Gui,Jian, do you want to file the bug report at
bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla yourself, to keep track of it, or would
you like us to take care of it?