From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27261 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2002 20:06:44 -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 27247 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2002 20:06:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2002 20:06:42 -0000 Received: from dsl254-114-118.nyc1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.254.114.118] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17ZGhi-00053S-00; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:01:18 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17ZGhb-0002QF-00; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:01:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:34:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] breakpoints and function prologues... Message-ID: <20020729200111.GA1746@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020722231957.GE4999@gnat.com> <20020726053320.GB10000@gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020726053320.GB10000@gnat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00558.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 10:33:20PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > 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? I don't like adding yet another meaning to line-number-0 very much; it has a defined meaning in GDB, which is "not part of a function". -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer