From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3609 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2009 17:02:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 3572 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Mar 2009 17:02:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:02:23 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1545B2BC6D2; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:02:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id N-evw+NzhRQR; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:02:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F2202BC6D1; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:02:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 09A64F5899; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:02:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:23:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Christophe LYON Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] obvious pattern fix in gdb.base/step-line.exp Message-ID: <20090330170216.GB9472@adacore.com> References: <49CCDB3D.5010302@st.com> <20090327184726.GW9472@adacore.com> <49D083FB.6020108@st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49D083FB.6020108@st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00678.txt.bz2 > So... it may be an issue with my compiler handling of #line? Not quite sure from the dump what exactly causes the change of behavior, I would need to look at the code more precisely, and I'm a little rush right now. But since I believe that printing the full name is perfectly valid (in fact, I later verified that this is what happens with Ada files as well, even though the debug info looks similar to what we get with step-line.c), it's fine to commit your patch. -- Joel