From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21062 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2010 22:04:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 20841 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Apr 2010 22:04:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:04:28 +0000 Received: (qmail 21821 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2010 22:04:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 4 Apr 2010 22:04:24 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: [patch] Fix breakpoint at *_start Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:04:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-20-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20100404210751.GA21664@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <201004042245.58720.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20100404215724.GA24966@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20100404215724.GA24966@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201004042304.22065.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2010-04/txt/msg00063.txt.bz2 On Sunday 04 April 2010 22:57:24, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 23:45:58 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > > On Sunday 04 April 2010 22:07:51, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > > Bugreport has been kept updated by the courtesy of John Reiser since = 2005. > >=20 > > What bug report? A PR? >=20 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D162775 >=20 > But found now GDB PR 9436 for it. I think you should still leave 9436 open. There's more to fix described in the PR. Maybe close PR9341, though. > > The need for -static is a test implementation detail on systems > > with a userspace dynamic loader =C3=A0 la ld.so. Can I convince you > > to remove "static" from the test name? >=20 > Do those systems support (=3Dignore) the "-static" flag? I can't speak for all systems, but it's conceivable we'll find some that don't. Most do support it. But then, non ld.so-ish target's won't need -static to trigger the problem. --=20 Pedro Alves