From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 839 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2012 18:26:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 830 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2012 18:26:30 -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 18:26:15 +0000 Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:26:00 -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: <20120315182613.GA10913@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> <20120315181002.GA10803@redhat.com> <831uotwx2d.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <831uotwx2d.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/msg00557.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:10:02 +0000 > > From: Gary Benson > > Cc: dje@google.com, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, > > mark@klomp.org > > > > > > "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. > > Why does this happen? Is the information in those sections > inaccurate? With the patch GDB now generates psymbols for inlined functions with no out-of-line version, and these are included in the index. If you use an old index these symbols will be missing, with the result that GDB will not have these symbols and therefore will not be able to set breakpoints on inlined functions by name. Cheers, Gary -- http://gbenson.net/