From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16704 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2011 03:33:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 16694 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Nov 2011 03:33:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 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; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 03:33:43 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A40A2BAF3D; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:33:42 -0500 (EST) 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 JqlKPmNT-iEn; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:33:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 379AB2BAF39; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:33:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5B4AD145615; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:33:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 03:33:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: one-too-many location in breakpoint (was: "Re: GDB 7.4 branching status? (2011-11-23)") Message-ID: <20111129033329.GS24943@adacore.com> References: <20111123163917.GA13809@adacore.com> <20111123232406.GQ13809@adacore.com> <20111124105603.GA91879@adacore.com> <20111124163304.GR13809@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00802.txt.bz2 I have a testcase where inserting a breakpoint causes one too many location. I haven't investigated why that is. That'll be next on my list. And I have another testcase where we also have an unexpected second location, but I think that this might be because I forgot to contribute some changes. It has to do with broken debug information due to linker bugs with -ffunction-sections. I haven't investigated either. And I think that's all! So, as you see, I think we're really close. I'll continue working on these two tomorrow... -- Joel