From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31140 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2004 21:47:31 -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 31126 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2004 21:47:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (213.93.77.109) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Jun 2004 21:47:29 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i5ILlSu3001002; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 23:47:28 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i5ILlRVx001501; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 23:47:27 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6/Submit) id i5ILlM3f001498; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 23:47:22 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:47:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200406182147.i5ILlM3f001498@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Mark Kettenis To: m.mueller99@kay-mueller.de CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <40D08A0C.1050606@kay-mueller.de> (message from Michael Mueller on Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:57:32 +0200) Subject: Re: [RFC]: patch 1 for Sun C compiled target programs References: <40D08A0C.1050606@kay-mueller.de> X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00448.txt.bz2 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:57:32 +0200 From: Michael Mueller Setting a breakpoint on a function name or on the first line of a function doesn't work for Sun C compiled target programs (32 and 64 bit). I verified this against these compiler versions: Sun C 5.5 2003/03/12 Forte Developer 7 C 5.4 2002/03/09 Sun WorkShop 6 update 2 C 5.3 2001/05/15 Sun WorkShop 6 2000/04/07 C 5.1 Ah yes. I knew about this. Just forgotten all about it. The funny code you're seeing is there to work around a bug in GCC 2.95. GDB fiddles a bit with the line number info trying to fix the breakage. It's completely bogus, and should go since it messes up real-world debugging with GCC 2.95 too. Unfortunately doing so will mess up the testsuite results when using GCC 2.95 :-(. I'll try to get this fixed before the 6.2 release. Thanks for giving me a bit more ammunition for getting this change accepted by the rest of the crowd. Mark