From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21104 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2008 14:46:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 21095 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Mar 2008 14:46:23 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:46:03 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECAF698298; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:46:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE4298278; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:46:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JciVM-0005yn-QF; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:46:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:46:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Pending breakpoints Message-ID: <20080321144600.GB25307@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <18372.29471.522929.827100@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18372.29471.522929.827100@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-03/txt/msg00300.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 09:14:23AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote: > (gdb) nosharedlibrary > (gdb) info break > Num Type Disp Enb Address What > 1 breakpoint keep y > > and the last "info break" no longer says what the breakpoint is for. I don't > really know when you would unload the shared library, in practice, but I think > this line should look like the first output from "info break", i.e., include > sqrt. I agree that this is wrong. > The patch below does that. It's a bit of a guess, though, and I've not run > the testuite. Seems good to me. We do the same in print_one_breakpoint_location. The patch is OK with a changelog and a full test run. Even better would be to discard locations when we shlib_disable a breakpoint, and get rid of the shlib_disable flag. But doing that may require that we get rid of shared libraries when we're supposed to. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery