From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-75632-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 10952 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2010 09:25:18 -0000
Received: (qmail 10940 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Sep 2010 09:25:17 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 09:25:11 +0000
Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1])	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8I9OpfE004251;	Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:24:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o8I9OnM9008112;	Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:24:49 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:03:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201009180924.o8I9OnM9008112@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: kevinb@redhat.com
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20100917164015.69011490@mesquite.lan> (message from Kevin	Buettner on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:40:15 -0700)
Subject: Re: [RFC] solib-svr4.c: Never attempt to place breakpoints on _start, __start, or main
References: <20100916152334.7e4f1ee5@mesquite.lan>	<201009170810.o8H8AITW028258@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20100917164015.69011490@mesquite.lan>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-09/txt/msg00327.txt.bz2

> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:40:15 -0700
> From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
> 
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:10:18 +0200 (CEST)
> Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
> > Obviously it is pointless to keep removing and reinserting these
> > breakpoints.  Perhaps they should be disabled as soon as one of them
> > has been hit?
> 
> That sounds like a good idea.  It's not sufficient though for
> debugging scenarios in which one attaches to a program that's
> already gone past start or main.  Perhaps we should skip the
> attempt to place a breakpoint on _start, __start, and main
> when attaching?

Probably.  We attempt to read the list of shared libraries when we
attach, and I'd be impressed if somebody would be able to attach to a
process before it hits _start ;).