This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [RFA] bfd/elf-eh-frame.c: return address column of CIE
- From: kaz Kojima <kkojima at rr dot iij4u dot or dot jp>
- To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Cc: jakub at redhat dot com, nickc at redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 07:51:19 +0900
- Subject: Re: [RFA] bfd/elf-eh-frame.c: return address column of CIE
- References: <20020823004351.O26639@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 07:18:33AM +0900, kaz Kojima wrote:
>> I'm just a little confused. It seems that GCC uses DWARF v2 not v3
>> format about this. gcc/dwarf2out.c (output_call_frame) outputs this
>> entry like as:
>>
>> ...
>> dw2_asm_output_data_sleb128 (DWARF_CIE_DATA_ALIGNMENT,
>> "CIE Data Alignment Factor");
>> dw2_asm_output_data (1, DWARF_FRAME_RETURN_COLUMN, "CIE RA Column");
>> ...
>>
>> but binutils uses DWARF v3. Does it mean that we should fix gcc?
>
> Well, gcc is slowly moving towards DWARF v3.
> Unless some architecture defines DWARF_FRAME_RETURN_COLUMN to 128 or bigger,
> this actually makes zero difference for gcc, but yes, gcc should be changed.
I understand. Nick, I'd like to withdraw my patch. Sorry about
my confusion.
Thanks,
kaz