From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix dangling displays in separate debug
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:48:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201004091747.50536.pedro@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100409155249.GA11583@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
On Friday 09 April 2010 16:52:49, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > Would using objfile_separate_debug_iterate be better?
>
> In this case we are examining `struct expression *'.
> EXP contains `struct symbol *'.
> SYMBOL points to `struct objfile *' of the separate debug info file.
>
> If SYMBOL points to `struct objfile *' of the main binary, it is equal to
> SOLIB->OBJFILE and it has been already checked before.
>
> The main binary -> separate debug info direction provided by the iterating
> functionality of objfile_separate_debug_iterate is not useful in this case.
Thanks for explaining. I should have read the patch properly.
Just one more question:
> - if (SYMBOL_SYMTAB (symbol)->objfile == solib->objfile)
> + symbol_objfile = SYMBOL_SYMTAB (symbol)->objfile;
> + if (symbol_objfile == solib->objfile
> + || symbol_objfile->separate_debug_objfile_backlink
> + == solib->objfile)
> return 1;
Can't both `symbol_objfile->separate_debug_objfile_backlink' (because
symbol_objfile is the main objfile already) and `solib->objfile'
(because GDB didn't find any symbols for the shared library) be NULL,
and hence this returns false positives?
--
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-09 16:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-03 9:56 Jan Kratochvil
2010-04-07 19:25 ` Tom Tromey
2010-04-09 15:30 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-04-09 15:34 ` Pedro Alves
2010-04-09 15:53 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-04-09 16:48 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2010-04-09 20:01 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-04-11 1:27 ` Pedro Alves
2010-04-19 14:25 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-04-20 11:05 ` Pedro Alves
2010-04-22 22:30 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-04-22 22:52 ` Pedro Alves
2010-04-22 23:17 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-04-09 17:17 ` Tom Tromey
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201004091747.50536.pedro@codesourcery.com \
--to=pedro@codesourcery.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=tromey@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox