Message-Id:	<199904191933.PAA30342@delorie.com>
From:	Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net>
Organization:	none provided
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Mon, 19 Apr 1999 22:33:57 +0200
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: Probblem: Debug info COFF vs. stabs
In-reply-to:	<Pine.LNX.3.93.990419153959.6515U-100000@acp3bf>
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d)
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> It seems like the base address of any code offset addresses found in the
> debug information (line numbers, esp.) is different for COFF and stabs.
> This wouldn't necessarily be a problem, but gprof uses the BFD library,
> 4and at the time it looks at a single line number record, there seems to be
> no information left about what type of debugging record it came from (a
> single executable may have both types in it, e.g. if you compile with
> -gstabs, but some of the libraries were made with -g).

Do you have a real example for it? What gcc/binutils you are using?

> I'm unsure which of the three possible things is wrong, here:
> 
> 1) BFD's understanding of COFF 
> 2) DJGPP's understanding of COFF
> 3) BFD's understanding of stabs symbols

I can't imagine any of the above, since other programs using BFD
work correct (like gdb) and DJGPP does not handle the debug information
in it's COFF reading routines (except FSDB/edebug, which of course
understand only the COFF debugging format).

Maybe there is an other possibility:

4) GROF's handling of BFD to read the symbols?

Robert

******************************************************
* email:   Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net>     *
* Post:    Am Berg 3, D-09573 Dittmannsdorf, Germany *
* WWW:     http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~sho/rho        *
******************************************************

- Raw text -