* configure.tgt (i[3456]86-*-unixware*, i[3456]86-*-unixware2*):

[deliverable/binutils-gdb.git] / gdb / dbxread.c

diff --git a/gdb/dbxread.c b/gdb/dbxread.c
index 9b2b73b042f453a02f6285803ea88151849f3288..430e3f51f2968a95060bb8b554d47cace87f6da4 100644 (file)
--- a/gdb/dbxread.c
+++ b/gdb/dbxread.c
@@ -203,6 +203,9 @@ struct complaint repeated_header_complaint =
 
 struct complaint unclaimed_bincl_complaint =
 {"N_BINCL %s not in entries for any file, at symtab pos %d", 0, 0};
+
+struct complaint discarding_local_symbols_complaint =
+{"misplaced N_LBRAC entry; discarding local symbols which have no enclosing block", 0, 0};
 \f
 /* find_text_range --- find start and end of loadable code sections
 
@@ -2881,7 +2884,21 @@ process_one_symbol (int type, int desc, CORE_ADDR valu, char *name,
       /* Can only use new->locals as local symbols here if we're in
          gcc or on a machine that puts them before the lbrack.  */
       if (!VARIABLES_INSIDE_BLOCK (desc, processing_gcc_compilation))
-       local_symbols = new->locals;
+       {
+         if (local_symbols != NULL)
+           {
+             /* GCC development snapshots from March to December of
+                2000 would output N_LSYM entries after N_LBRAC
+                entries.  As a consequence, these symbols are simply
+                discarded.  Complain if this is the case.  Note that
+                there are some compilers which legitimately put local
+                symbols within an LBRAC/RBRAC block; this complaint
+                might also help sort out problems in which
+                VARIABLES_INSIDE_BLOCK is incorrectly defined.  */
+             complain (&discarding_local_symbols_complaint);
+           }
+         local_symbols = new->locals;
+       }
 
       if (context_stack_depth
          > !VARIABLES_INSIDE_BLOCK (desc, processing_gcc_compilation))