X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_NEUTRAL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4E3BF0ED.60804@cs.utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 09:32:29 -0400
From: Ryan Johnson <ryan DOT johnson AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: gdb-7.3.50-1 can't read debug info for gcc-4.5.0-1 (exp)?
References: <4E3BDAEC DOT 8040302 AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca>
In-Reply-To: <4E3BDAEC.8040302@cs.utoronto.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com


On 05/08/2011 7:58 AM, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> It seems that the latest release of gdb doesn't quite get debug info 
> right when reading apps compiled with the experimental gcc-4.5 
> package. It's a lot closer than the old  gdb was able to get, but 
> reported line numbers are usually off by 3-5 lines and breakpoints are 
> similarly affected.
>
> Is there some obvious reason I shouldn't expect this to work, and have 
> other people seen similar problems? If the answers are "no" and "no" 
> I'll start trying to isolate a small test case, and meanwhile I'm 
> building a gdb from scratch which I'll report back on.
Huh. Seems to have been a fluke... now that I've built a gdb-7.3 from 
scratch, both it and the cygwin version work equally flawlessly. The 
only things that have changed are that I rebased my system because the 
gdb build was spawning fork failures left and right, and I recompiled 
the binary (maybe with different flags? the flags I used before were in 
an emacs session which I had to close to rebase). I don't know why the 
former would affect anything, and I'll remain skeptical of the latter 
unless I stumble across another magic combo of "bad" compiler flags (I 
wasn't doing anything crazy or unusual in that area).

Sorry for cluttering up the list with this.
Ryan


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple