From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5352 invoked by alias); 14 May 2008 02:47:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 5344 invoked by uid 22791); 14 May 2008 02:47:02 -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, 14 May 2008 02:46:42 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B131983F9; Wed, 14 May 2008 02:46:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13CA8982C4; Wed, 14 May 2008 02:46:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Jw70q-0002Av-6k; Tue, 13 May 2008 22:46:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 14:48:00 -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: <20080514024640.GA8332@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Miller , ppluzhnikov@google.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, dje@google.com, msnyder@specifix.com References: <8ac60eac0805131351s241d33a8pd7d9839c51e53a8d@mail.gmail.com> <20080513.151626.265832990.davem@davemloft.net> <20080513230220.GA28151@caradoc.them.org> <20080513.181050.211688658.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080513.181050.211688658.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/msg00424.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 06:10:50PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > 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)? > > There is a PLT entry, and when I disassemble it it looks like > "printf@plt". > > But when I set a breakpoint it gets set on printf@GLIBC_2.0 > instead of the correct printf@@GLIBC_2.4 > > All of my other systems have one non-versioned printf symbol, > so either that is the different or the ordering of the symbols. Yes, this is probably an impact of the 128-bit long double transition. GDB knows how to set multiple breakpoints on functions with debug info, but not without debug info (a known issue). > Regardless, where does GDB try to generate the correct version > postfix string for a symbol during symbol lookup? :-) True, this would be useful for calling functions. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery