http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54887
--- Comment #7 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-24 21:25:24 UTC ---
I looked at this. Looks like even before r191494, this lexical block was there
already. So I'd think this is as expected.
Dehao
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54887
--- Comment #6 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-24 17:56:32 UTC ---
I'll take a look at this case today.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54887
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Arnez 2012-10-24
17:51:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> <2><32e>: Abbrev Number: 27 (DW_TAG_lexical_block)
> <32f> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x400758
> <337> DW_AT_high_pc : 0x38 0x0
> <3><3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54887
Andreas Arnez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54887
dehao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54887
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Arnez 2012-10-10
17:14:32 UTC ---
Right. I've checked that the new upstream gcc with r192285 fixes the problem.
Thanks!
BTW, while investigating this I wondered why g++ wraps all locals in a lexical
block in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54887
--- Comment #1 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-10 15:47:47 UTC ---
I think r192285 already solve the problem. Could you help verify that?
Thanks,
Dehao
