From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28825 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2002 05:33:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 28818 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2002 05:33:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Jul 2002 05:33:20 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 9B20ED2CBD; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 22:33:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 06:12:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] breakpoints and function prologues... Message-ID: <20020726053320.GB10000@gnat.com> References: <20020722231957.GE4999@gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00532.txt.bz2 > In the long term, if we can get GDB to use Dwarf 2 CFI and location > lists, there will be no difference between setting breakpoints before > or after the prologue. The prologue scanning and skipping behavior > will only be necessary in the absence of that debugging info. I agree. In the meantime, may I suggest we install Jim Ingham's patch? I think the new behavior would be more useful than the current, but maybe I'm wrong? Another alternative that has been discussed at ACT is to move the line where the function declaration is located to an address immediately past the function prologue. And the prologue would get a separate line info entry with a line number set to 0. The rationale behind modifying the compiler is that the compiler knows much better than GDB what part of the code is the prologue, and therefore should be in a better position of to provide accurate line information. But I personally (ie I'm not speaking for ACT) prefer changing GDB. What do you think? -- Joel