From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32026 invoked by alias); 14 May 2008 22:01:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 31925 invoked by uid 22791); 14 May 2008 22:01:17 -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 22:00:58 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8017E80001; Wed, 14 May 2008 22:00:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C27983F9; Wed, 14 May 2008 22:00:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JwP1r-00077k-NS; Wed, 14 May 2008 18:00:55 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 00:45:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Relax "printf" function name check in annota* test cases Message-ID: <20080514220055.GA27367@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200805142136.m4ELaM2F018037@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200805142136.m4ELaM2F018037@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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/msg00451.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:36:22PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Hello, > > this patch fixes the last regression after Alan's patch was applied: > some sub-tests of annota1.exp and annota3.exp are now failing because > when stopped at the "printf" breakpoint, the current function is not > called printf, but printf@plt. This is unrelated to the annota tests, as you said... but the breakpoint is at "printf", isn't it? Why are we stopping at printf@plt instead of the definition when we know glibc is loaded? Maybe this comes back to the two names trouble? I have no objection to relaxing this test but I'm wondering if we need another. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery