X-Authentication-Warning:	acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de: broeker owned process doing -bs
Date:	Mon, 26 Jul 1999 15:19:59 +0200 (MET DST)
From:	Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
X-Sender:	broeker AT acp3bf
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Bizarre debugging format problem
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990725105857.27488D-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.3.93.990726150506.2629E-100000@acp3bf>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sun, 25 Jul 1999, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Now I understand why we were talking about different things: you were
> working with Binutils 2.8.1, while I was looking at the BFD library
> that's part of GDB 4.18, which seems to be from Binutils 2.9.1 and
> has some changes beyond that.  The bug with section-relative offsets
> is already solved in stock Binutils 2.9.1 and in the version GDB uses.

Yep; makes sense. I'll have a go at binutils-2.9.1 gprof, then.

> There's still one thing that I don't understand: for some addresses,
> usually at the closing brace of a function, "objudmp --line-numbers"
> prints strange symbol names like <.ef> or <.bb>.  Is this a bug, or am
> I missing something?

.ef and .bb are 'technical' debugging symbols (.ef: end of function), I
think. At least, that's what I gleaned from looking at gcc assembly
output. I don't know enough about the exact definition of COFF and
its debug infos to be sure what they're for, and whether they should
turn up in the dump.

Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

- Raw text -