From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31760 invoked by alias); 7 May 2008 12:19:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 31752 invoked by uid 22791); 7 May 2008 12:19:42 -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; Wed, 07 May 2008 12:19:23 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8BA9835A; Wed, 7 May 2008 12:19:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA0898011; Wed, 7 May 2008 12:19:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JticC-0000Xl-DJ; Wed, 07 May 2008 08:19:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 22:00:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Markus Deuling Cc: GDB Patches , Ulrich Weigand Subject: Re: [patch]: User choice for multiply-defined symbols Message-ID: <20080507121920.GA1734@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Markus Deuling , GDB Patches , Ulrich Weigand References: <481EBD33.6090704@de.ibm.com> <20080505114545.GA22274@caradoc.them.org> <482130DF.5010703@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <482130DF.5010703@de.ibm.com> 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: 2008-05/txt/msg00265.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 06:32:31AM +0200, Markus Deuling wrote: > (gdb) break foo > [0] cancel > [1] all > [2] foo at ../../../../src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/multiple_symbols_mod.c:5 > [3] foo at ../../../../src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/multiple_symbols.c:14 > > Without the patch GDB would take the first symbol "foo" it finds. I guess this would be the one in the main > executable in this case. To set a breakpoint at "foo" in multiple_symbols_mod.c the user has to explicitly > mention it. This exmaple shows the behaviour without patch: GDB has done this for years and years. I guess these are just normal C symbols rather than C++ overloaded symbols, though, so that's the difference? I'm worried about all the different ways of dealing with lists of symbols. If we can already ask to set a breakpoint at foo(int) or foo(int, int) why does this code have to be in a separate place? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery