Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
To: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com>
Cc: Adam Fedor <fedor@doc.com>,
	"gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [rfa/symtab] Move find_pc_section call to	lookup_minimal_symbol_by_pc
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:40:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4027B80E.8090805@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16423.43004.585697.397480@localhost.redhat.com>

>  > > +  if (ecs->stop_func_name == NULL
>  > > +      && step_over_calls == STEP_OVER_UNDEBUGGABLE)
>  > > +    {
>  > > +      /* We couldn't determine where we stopped, so we just stepped
>  > > +         inside undebuggable code.  Since we want to step over this
>  > > +         kind of code, we keep going until the inferior returns from
>  > > +         the current function.  */
>  > > +      handle_step_into_function (ecs);
>  > > +      return;
>  > > +    }
>  > 
>  > not triggering.  ->stop_func_name had a non-NULL but bogus symbol name.
> 
> So, the complete fix includes Joel's patch?

Not really.  It was only by seeing Joel's change, and hence knowing that 
edge case, that I had a fighting chance of figuring out how it was ment 
to work.  BTW, even though "step_over_calls == STEP_OVER_UNDEBUGGABLE" 
is technically redundant, I think it is needed - clarifies this specific 
condition.

(Joel, perhaphs write the above as:
step_over_calls == STEP_OVER_UNDEBUGGABLE && cs->stop_func_name == NULL
since that is how the test is ordered elsewhere (since neither has a 
sideeffect it's no real difference).)

>> ok?
> 
> sure, let's see what other obscure cases break now. :-)

In it goes ...

Andrew



  reply	other threads:[~2004-02-09 16:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-01-27 22:23 Andrew Cagney
2004-01-27 22:52 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-01-29 20:15 ` Elena Zannoni
2004-01-29 23:22   ` Andrew Cagney
2004-01-30  3:30     ` Adam Fedor
2004-01-30  4:53     ` Adam Fedor
2004-02-04 22:25       ` Elena Zannoni
2004-02-09  4:26         ` Adam Fedor
2004-02-09 15:31           ` Elena Zannoni
2004-01-30  3:29   ` Adam Fedor
2004-02-04 22:20     ` Elena Zannoni
2004-02-04 23:06       ` Andrew Cagney
2004-02-06 18:59         ` Andrew Cagney
2004-02-08  5:17           ` Adam Fedor
2004-02-09 15:35           ` Elena Zannoni
2004-02-09 16:40             ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2004-02-09 17:54               ` Joel Brobecker
2004-02-09 21:58 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-02-10 16:38 ` Adam Fedor
2004-02-16 18:11 ` Elena Zannoni
2004-02-17  4:47   ` Adam Fedor
2004-02-17  5:00     ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-02-17 14:23     ` Elena Zannoni
2004-02-18  3:40       ` Adam Fedor

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4027B80E.8090805@gnu.org \
    --to=cagney@gnu.org \
    --cc=brobecker@gnat.com \
    --cc=ezannoni@redhat.com \
    --cc=fedor@doc.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox