From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17992 invoked by alias); 11 May 2009 21:20:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 17974 invoked by uid 22791); 11 May 2009 21:20:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 May 2009 21:20:10 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BE087C0AF; Mon, 11 May 2009 21:20:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EDEA7C09B; Mon, 11 May 2009 21:20:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1M3cus-0004I2-9d; Mon, 11 May 2009 17:20:06 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 21:20:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix "break foo" when `foo's prologue ends before line table Message-ID: <20090511212006.GA16436@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <83skjebbef.fsf@gnu.org> <20090511125644.GD14773@adacore.com> <83zldjxzzr.fsf@gnu.org> <20090511192709.GG14773@adacore.com> <83tz3rxt4p.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83tz3rxt4p.fsf@gnu.org> 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: 2009-05/txt/msg00231.txt.bz2 On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:49:10PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Are such rearrangements permitted? I mean, are we talking about a > real-life situation here? Definitely. This happens all the time. > > Do you really want "break foo" to break on the line where a () is > > called? > > It's hard to say, really. There are arguments for both, but I > personally tend to think that stopping on the call to `a' is what I'd > want. > > What do others think? I agree with Pedro. When the compiler moves something into the prologue, generally, we try to stop on it - even if the prologue is not yet finished. > > /* The order of entries in the linetable is significant. They should > > be sorted by increasing values of the pc field. > > Well, granted, I've seen that comment. But (a) are we sure all of our > comments are necessarily accurate to rely on them?, and (b) it > continues to say This data structure relies on being sorted by PC. You can see e.g. in find_pc_sect_line. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery