From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23170 invoked by alias); 29 Feb 2004 17:18:02 -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 23162 invoked from network); 29 Feb 2004 17:18:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Feb 2004 17:18:02 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AxUZl-0004RM-Nn; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 12:18:01 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:18:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc,6.1?] Use right frame ID in step_over_function Message-ID: <20040229171801.GK15749@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <40416BAF.1020308@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40416BAF.1020308@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00898.txt.bz2 On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:33:51PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Hello, > > This goes into the "how did it ever work" category. The idea of > step_over_function is that it: > > - finds the caller's resume address > - finds the caller's frame ID > > and then sets a breakpoint for that caller instance of the function. > The current code: > > - finds the caller's resume address > - finds the _callee_ frame ID > > and then uses that to set the breakpoint. Now that is plain weird! It > only works because either: > > - the step_frame_id patches up the bug > > - the values match as GDB is using the inner-most, rather than > outer-most frame address as part of the frame ID > > The bug apepars when trying to step over nested shared library non-debug > info functions (making sense?). No, not really. Could you give us a testcase? What platform have you seen this behavior on? > I'll follow this up after 6.1 branch is in place. > > Its pretty heavy a change to apply to that branch and this late. > However, like Joel's related patch, I suspect it will be needed :-/ > > Andrew > > PS: Why do I have this feeling of dejavu? Because we discussed this problem in July 2003 and neither of us had time to come back to the issue? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer