[Was this intentionally not sent to the bug? If not then please direct
follow-ups there as well]
On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 03:02 +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Le samedi 09 octobre 2010 20:56:01, vous avez écrit :
> > +--- a/libtcc.c
> > ++++ b/libtcc.c
> > +@@ -1431,7 +1431,11 @@ static void rt_printline(unsigned long wanted_pc)
> > [...]
> > ++#ifdef STT_IFUNC
> > ++ if ((type == STT_FUNC) || (type == STT_GNU_IFUNC)) {
> >
> > Should the ifdef not also refer to STT_GNU_IFUNC? This appears to be
> > the only occurrence of STT_IFUNC in the package.
> No it should not. In fact the ifdef should simply go away. But part of the
> code is really not important. It's about displaying source line number in
> case
> of runtime error and the function in which the error is. As the ifdef isn't
> correct (it should use STT_GNU_IFUNC or simply not exists), and the function
> where the error happen is a STT_GNU_IFUNC symbol, it won't display the
> function name but just the PC. In other words, it's not a regression and as
> only string functions in (e)glibc seems to use STT_GNU_IFUNC the effect is
> limited.
So the code works, but has unhelpful (at least, not as helpful as it
could be) reporting in the case of errors?
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/1286710734.9305.6168.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
