Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Adam Fedor <fedor@doc.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Cc: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>,
	"gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [rfa/symtab] Move find_pc_section call to	lookup_minimal_symbol_by_pc
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:17:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1076217443.1224.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4023E404.2090407@gnu.org>

On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 11:59, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > Um, I'm not sure what is happening.  My GNU/Linux amd64 box appears to pass both times:
> 
> I've found the right machine (YelloDog 3.0), the attached appears to 
> work on both yellow dog and IRIX (and Fedora Core).
> 
> The new patch modifies find_pc_partial_function supply the PC's section 
> when available.
> 
> Look ok?
> 
> The problem was that the symbol lookup was finding a symbol from a 
> previous section, instead of no symbol in the current section.  That 
> leads to this test (using Joe's rewrite):
> 
> > +  if (ecs->stop_func_name == NULL
> > +      && step_over_calls == STEP_OVER_UNDEBUGGABLE)
> > +    {
> > +      /* We couldn't determine where we stopped, so we just stepped
> > +         inside undebuggable code.  Since we want to step over this
> > +         kind of code, we keep going until the inferior returns from
> > +         the current function.  */
> > +      handle_step_into_function (ecs);
> > +      return;
> > +    }
> 
> not triggering.  ->stop_func_name had a non-NULL but bogus symbol name.
> 
> ok?

Current gdb with this patch works fine for me (using PR 1237 and PR 1280
tests).


  reply	other threads:[~2004-02-08  5:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-01-27 22:23 Andrew Cagney
2004-01-27 22:52 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-01-29 20:15 ` Elena Zannoni
2004-01-29 23:22   ` Andrew Cagney
2004-01-30  3:30     ` Adam Fedor
2004-01-30  4:53     ` Adam Fedor
2004-02-04 22:25       ` Elena Zannoni
2004-02-09  4:26         ` Adam Fedor
2004-02-09 15:31           ` Elena Zannoni
2004-01-30  3:29   ` Adam Fedor
2004-02-04 22:20     ` Elena Zannoni
2004-02-04 23:06       ` Andrew Cagney
2004-02-06 18:59         ` Andrew Cagney
2004-02-08  5:17           ` Adam Fedor [this message]
2004-02-09 15:35           ` Elena Zannoni
2004-02-09 16:40             ` Andrew Cagney
2004-02-09 17:54               ` Joel Brobecker
2004-02-09 21:58 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-02-10 16:38 ` Adam Fedor
2004-02-16 18:11 ` Elena Zannoni
2004-02-17  4:47   ` Adam Fedor
2004-02-17  5:00     ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-02-17 14:23     ` Elena Zannoni
2004-02-18  3:40       ` Adam Fedor

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1076217443.1224.1.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=fedor@doc.com \
    --cc=cagney@gnu.org \
    --cc=ezannoni@redhat.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox