From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Charlie Mills To: Fernando Nasser , Daniel Berlin Cc: Michael Snyder , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Simple but crucial bug fix to gdb Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 14:05:00 -0000 Message-id: <3.0.5.32.20010601140529.009ea7a0@pophost.pdxuxbre.lmc.com> References: <3.0.5.32.20010530142745.01470ec0@pophost.pdxuxbre.lmc.com> <20010530173650.A21397@redhat.com> <3B15711D.BEA4B77E@cygnus.com> <3B1638A2.79AE4BCF@redhat.com> <20010531194656.A27403@redhat.com> <87ofs9hw29.fsf@dynamic-addr-83-177.resnet.rochester.edu> <3B17CA59.6C83B926@cygnus.com> <87y9rcqd98.fsf@dynamic-addr-83-177.resnet.rochester.edu> <3B17DE0E.5A5F9BAD@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00010.html At 02:25 PM 6/1/01 -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote: >Daniel Berlin wrote: >> >> Michael Snyder writes: >> >> > "Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote: >> > > >> > > Daniel Berlin writes: >> > > >> > > : [...] >> > > : However, we should *never* see a case where pst is NULL, and >> > > : textlow_not_set is 1, at the point we see a function. >> > > : [...] >> > > >> > > Would a gdb_assert() to this effect satisfy all sides? >> > >> > gdb_assert causes an abort if the conditional fails. >> > I generally think it's better if the debugger doesn't abort >> > (unles it's believed to be in an unrecoverable state). >> >> To be honest, i'd consider it an unrecoverable state. >> This is because if the compiler is producing such broken debug info >> that we see functions outside of where we should, it's likely your >> debug info is so screwed up as to be worthless, and just cause you to >> think GDB is broken. >> > >As I understand from Charles Mills message, he can use the debugger if it is allowed to proceed. So things are not that bad. > >Charles, can you confirm that? Thanks. > > >-- >Fernando Nasser >Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com >2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 >Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9 > > Well, yes and no! I can and do use gdb with my simple patch, it's certainly a lot better than a crash, but it is true that gdb then cannot find line numbers in *some* of my functions, just as Jim Blandy surmises, so I am still going to have to figure out how to fix my executable to be more friendly to gdb. You guys are excellent! Thanks. -- Charlie Mills cmills@synopsys.com ..work mills@q7.com ..personal (503)748-2665 ..at work today