From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7092 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2008 17:25:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 7080 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jan 2008 17:25:06 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:24:40 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915022A9AA1; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:24:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id tk7qLHq50sb1; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:24:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEAD72A9A9D; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:24:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C2FF4E7ACB; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:24:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:58:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pierre Muller Cc: pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Our next GDB release (GDB version 6.8) Message-ID: <20080131172435.GH12387@adacore.com> References: <20080126005319.GD21874@adacore.com> <000501c8619c$5261e940$f725bbc0$@u-strasbg.fr> <20080130180336.GD11271@adacore.com> <000901c863de$9fe9fa60$dfbdef20$@u-strasbg.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000901c863de$9fe9fa60$dfbdef20$@u-strasbg.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00858.txt.bz2 > the main problem here is that when you use the 'start' command or > set a breakpoint in 'main' function and 'run', the behavior is not > consistent between ELF and other exe formats. Got it: http://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2006-11/msg00140.html. Thanks. > I really would like this one to go into GDB 6.8 In my opinion, this is not a critical issue. IIUC, this is not a regression, and the only issue is that, for the "main", the breakpoint will be placed at a location such that the debugger will stop at the open curly brace. So the user will need an extra "next". I did notice that the fix gets rid of a lot of FAILs though. If it was just me, I would categorize this as non release-critical. But the rest of the group might disagree, so I'll defer to them. -- Joel