Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/gnu/dist/gcc/gcc/config/i386
To: Matthias Drochner <M.Drochner@fz-juelich.de>
From: Krister Walfridsson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/16/2004 23:02:17
[Sorry for digging up this old issue. I was traveling at the time, and
did not notice this until now...]
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Matthias Drochner wrote:
> The "double" should be 4-byte aligned. (It is in the code, but
> the dwarf2 info is wrong.)
> I've checked a gcc-3.3.3 on Linux, and it fails in a similar way.
> There are some related PRs in gcc's bugzilla, eg ##6522, 10360,
> 14142, 14190, 14191.
> They are all more or less put down by the gcc people, there is
> not much hope that the problem will be fixed in gcc-3.3.x.
> (gcc-3.4 works, but there are serious structural changes which
> let a backport appear infaesible to me.)
> So it seems we have to live with either buggy dwarf debugging
> or incomplete stabs debugging for now...
GDB have problems with stabs; I don't think I have managed to
debug any non-trivial program on NetBSD 2.0 without GDB crashing
or misbehaving in other ways. Switching to dwarf has solved these
And you really want dwarf when debugging C++ too.
I see this as choosing between a working debugger (that of course
have bugs, but it is the same bugs as on e.g. Linux), or a limited
debugger with lots of problems that handles one corner case that
the working debugger fails on...
So I think the quote from PR 25094:
[It is] somewhat embarrasing if the system ships with a compiler that
produces output that the systems debugger can't use. I'd say that
shipping 2.0 with this would be a Bad Thing.
is even more true for the current situation...
I think that gcc must be changed back to use dwarf.