Re: Simple but crucial bug fix to gdb

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser@cygnus.com>]

Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
> Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com> writes:
> 
> > "Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote:
> > >
> > > Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com> 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