Message ID | CAJMcOU-ZakOBa_L8m6dRQW4kX9YPPxLFLj-ysGyaFzkemb5HGg@mail.gmail.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On Apr 12, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth.at.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: > The attached patch is a back port of the change from > https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=211067 for > gcc-4_9-branch. Bootstrap and regression tested on > x86_64-apple-darwin14 with Xcode 6.3. Okay for gcc-4_9-branch? > Jack > <PR61352_backport.diff> Ok. Committed revision 222835.
> > The attached patch is a back port of the change from > > https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=211067 for > > gcc-4_9-branch. Bootstrap and regression tested on > > x86_64-apple-darwin14 with Xcode 6.3. Okay for gcc-4_9-branch? > > Jack > > <PR61352_backport.diff> > > Ok. > > Committed revision 222835. FTR - for those who do not follow bugzilla PRs, we have found that dsymutil is not working well at all: missing DWARF dies, SEGVs, not working well with -gno-strict-dwarf. As said in the PR, I don't think this is the right solution, particularly since we don't have any control on dsymutil's quality and features. I suggest we revert this patch, and try to understand why GDB wasn't able to pull the debugging info from the executable (assuming that's still an issue). Thanks,
Index: gcc/collect2.c =================================================================== --- gcc/collect2.c (revision 222021) +++ gcc/collect2.c (working copy) @@ -848,6 +848,8 @@ maybe_run_lto_and_relink (char **lto_ld_ fork_execute ("ld", lto_ld_argv); post_ld_pass (false); } + else + post_ld_pass (true); } /* Main program. */