On Wed, 6 Jan 2021, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On 1/6/21 8:01 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Jan 5, 2021, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > > > >> But isn't this a consumer issue then? If there is no line info for > >> a PC range then gdb shouldn't display any. > > > > No, there *is* line info there, carried over from an earlier .loc > > directive, as there isn't anything like ".noloc" to output with a > > function that is not expected or supposed to have line number info. > > > > Without that, the assembler just extends the previous .loc directive > > onto the function. > > > > Theoretically we could exclude the range of the no-loc function > from the .debug_ranges, then gdb would not even step into the function.
I'd argue we're failing to emit a .endloc at the end of functions (rather than issueing a .noloc at the start of functions with no locations). I wonder if using a special file ID and switching to that would be an effective workaround? When gas is extended we could use file ID zero for this (which gas currently rejects). > However if we have at least a single line info as in the case of the thunks, > then that would be better than nothing (what this patch does). But the problem extends to functins which do not have any line, so what line do you use in that case? Richard.
