From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fernando Nasser To: Daniel Berlin Cc: Michael Snyder , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Charlie Mills Subject: Re: Simple but crucial bug fix to gdb Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:25:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B17DE0E.5A5F9BAD@cygnus.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> X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00007.html 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