From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20967 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2008 12:48:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 20708 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Apr 2008 12:48:47 -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; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:48:27 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DFBA983BE; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:48:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41DA398278; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:48:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JhOrf-0004Hr-Ot; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:48:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:25:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Pending breakpoints Message-ID: <20080403124823.GA16356@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <18372.29471.522929.827100@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080321144600.GB25307@caradoc.them.org> <18420.47315.225382.512236@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18420.47315.225382.512236@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: 2008-04/txt/msg00068.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:00:35PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > -6 longjmp keep n 0xb7da7be0 > -7 longjmp keep n 0xb7da7be0 > -8 longjmp keep n 0xb7da7be0 Actually this is the one I consider a problem; it's weird that we look up the symbol name for this. We set breakpoints on longjmp and _longjmp and siglongjmp just in case they're different. And that predates your change. > > 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. > > Would that `solve' this problem? I hope so. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery