From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16715 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2006 13:45:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 16705 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jan 2006 13:45:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 13:45:05 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1Eurtw-0001HF-17; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:45:04 -0500 Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 13:45:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Amit Kale Cc: GDB patches Subject: Re: Breakpoints in constructors Message-ID: <20060106134503.GB4796@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Amit Kale , GDB patches References: <200601031835.45731.amitkale@linsyssoft.com> <20060103194006.GA12898@nevyn.them.org> <200601061856.39161.amitkale@linsyssoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200601061856.39161.amitkale@linsyssoft.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00077.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 06:56:39PM +0530, Amit Kale wrote: > I was not able to fix other failures though. The major one being a breakpoint > on a statement in main causes three breakpoints to appear. It's because this > statement is a call to a C++ inlined function. The expansion of inline > function dodges the check in my patch for multiple breakpoints appearing for > the same C statement when the statement is spread across multiple > instructions interlaced with instructions from surrounding statements. I > checked for function name, which would be the inline function name. That's > why my check fails. Sigh, I wanted to send this patch again only after fixing > this problem, but don't have any good ideas on how to do that. I'll very much > appreciate if anyone has ideas about fixing this. The hack of checking whether they appear in the same function just won't scale to fix this - possibly ever, but certainly not until inline functions are represented properly in GDB's symbol table. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery