From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25130 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2012 18:10:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 25122 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2012 18:10:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_FAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gbenson.demon.co.uk (HELO gbenson.demon.co.uk) (80.177.220.214) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:10:05 +0000 Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:10:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: dje@google.com, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, mark@klomp.org Subject: Re: [RFA take 6] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738) Message-ID: <20120315181002.GA10803@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , dje@google.com, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, mark@klomp.org References: <20120314133746.GA5696@redhat.com> <20120314175451.GA20072@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120315105117.GA3076@redhat.com> <833999wxkt.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <833999wxkt.fsf@gnu.org> 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00555.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:51:17 +0000 > > From: Gary Benson > > Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, > > Eli Zaretskii , Mark Wielaard > > > > Jan, Doug, Eli, how do you feel about "possibly inconsistent"? > > > > The option text would become: > > > > "Do not reject possibly inconsistent .gdb_index sections." > > The meaning of that is that the sections being skipped are > inconsistent within themselves. If that's really what you meant, > I'm fine with the change. The issue is that with older index section the information in the .gdb_index sections is not consistent with the information that GDB would generate from the DWARF. Does that make sense? Thanks, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/