Re: gdb -- symbols read in? or not read in?
David Taylor <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <29511.1418068036@usendtaylorx2l> |
Doug Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:04 AM, David Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > > and in both cases GDB responded with > > > > type = struct { > > <no data fields> > > } > > Ugh. Got repro? While I can reproduce it at will, I do not yet have a test file that I can share. [...] > > So, were the symbols read in? Or not read in? No file should be in > > both lists. > Were .c/.cc files in both lists, or just headers? > It would not be unexpected to find headers in both lists, > but finding .c/.cc files in both lists would be a bug > (assuming things like the .c not being used as a "header", > and all files came from the same objfile). I didn't check. Checking just now I see that it is header files that are duplicated. No *.c files and no assbembly files are in both lists. Why would you expect headers to be in both lists? Of course, this might just be a weirdness unrelated to my real problem of member fields not showing up. > > Is this a known problem? I didn't see anything in the bug database > > about it. > > > News to me. Got repro? Not yet. I'll look into how hard it is to create one. Current reproduction involves way too many files. I expect that reducing it down will take some time. I was hoping that either it was reported and I missed it in my searches or that someone had seen it, but didn't report it, and knew more about it. > Repros for all problems found will help. Understood. As a developer I fully understand that it is very hard to debug problems that are not reliably reproducible. And even harder to verify the fix. > We definitely want to help you get past this, stabs needs to die. > (light pun on dwarf intended :-)). What? You mean that you want to stab STABS? ;) We record macro information in the debug information. [Aside: the GCC and GDB changes for doing this with STABS were posted *years* ago but never merged.] Until GCC 4.7.x which extended DWARF to put all the macro strings together, using DWARF caused our files to swell to 10+ times the size with STABS and was therefore a non starter for us. I'll look into reproduction with a smaller set of files. If I'm unable to it'll probably be next year before I can debug it myself (due to the company's use-it-or-lose-it vacation policy I'll be gone the last couple of weeks of this month).