From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9833 invoked by alias); 13 May 2008 23:02:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 9823 invoked by uid 22791); 13 May 2008 23:02:43 -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; Tue, 13 May 2008 23:02:23 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E5EF80001; Tue, 13 May 2008 23:02:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 315FE982C4; Tue, 13 May 2008 23:02:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Jw3Vk-0007KO-18; Tue, 13 May 2008 19:02:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 04:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: David Miller Cc: ppluzhnikov@google.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, dje@google.com, msnyder@specifix.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Fix for mishandling of "break 'pthread_create@GLIBC_2.2.5'" Message-ID: <20080513230220.GA28151@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Miller , ppluzhnikov@google.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, dje@google.com, msnyder@specifix.com References: <8ac60eac0805131135h5e9dd46ev8b7f39e660bf0bb7@mail.gmail.com> <20080513184447.GA12349@caradoc.them.org> <8ac60eac0805131351s241d33a8pd7d9839c51e53a8d@mail.gmail.com> <20080513.151626.265832990.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080513.151626.265832990.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-05) 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/msg00420.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 03:16:26PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > I have a related problem right now in that the annota1 and annota3 > testcases fail on my machine because all of the printf symbols in > libc are versioned and the one you get with a simple "b printf" is > random and determined by the order in which the symbols get added to > the minsym hashes: > > 0005b260 T printf@@GLIBC_2.4 > 001425c0 T printf@GLIBC_2.0 > > GDB's support for symbol versioning could definitely be improved :-) What's different for SPARC in this regard from other targets? Is it lack of a PLT entry (or BFD synthetic symbol for said PLT entry)? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery