[Bug debug/19521] [4.0 Regression] omitted stab for gcov initialization function

2005-02-16 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17 03:57 --- stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.0.0/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11/bin/ -g - O2 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros

[Bug debug/19521] [4.0 Regression] omitted stab for gcov initialization function

2005-02-16 Thread rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-16 20:28 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED

[Bug debug/19521] [4.0 Regression] omitted stab for gcov initialization function

2005-02-16 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-16 19:01 --- Subject: Bug 19521 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-16 19:01:29 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog dbxout.c Log message:

[Bug debug/19521] [4.0 Regression] omitted stab for gcov initialization function

2005-02-14 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-14 13:59 --- Stuart, ping! rth attached a patch 10 days ago and asked for feedback. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19521

[Bug debug/19521] [4.0 Regression] omitted stab for gcov initialization function

2005-02-02 Thread rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03 01:40 --- Try this. I think at least it makes dbxout self-consistent. If someone does strongly think that we shouldn't be marking the function DECL_IGNORED_P in the first place, then that can be done separately. --

[Bug debug/19521] [4.0 Regression] omitted stab for gcov initialization function

2005-02-02 Thread rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org | Status|NEW

[Bug debug/19521] [4.0 Regression] omitted stab for gcov initialization function

2005-01-19 Thread stuart at apple dot com
--- Additional Comments From stuart at apple dot com 2005-01-19 17:08 --- > So the bug is the end stab without the start stab? Yes. > Or do you think that this > bit of code that corresponds not at all to any user code should have full > stabs? My personal preference is a mild "yes."

[Bug debug/19521] [4.0 Regression] omitted stab for gcov initialization function

2005-01-18 Thread rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19 02:35 --- So the bug is the end stab without the start stab? Or do you think that this bit of code that corresponds not at all to any user code should have full stabs? If the later, why? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug debug/19521] [4.0 Regression] omitted stab for gcov initialization function

2005-01-18 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19 01:16 --- (In reply to comment #2) > This is a regression from 3.3; I think the cause is this line in cgraphunit.c > (cgraph_build_static_cdtor): (approximately line 1847) > > DECL_IGNORED_P (decl) = 1; DECL_IGNOR