From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9102 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2004 16:40:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9095 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2004 16:40:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2004 16:40:46 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915BB2B92; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:40:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4027B80E.8090805@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:40:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elena Zannoni , Joel Brobecker Cc: Adam Fedor , "gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" Subject: Re: [rfa/symtab] Move find_pc_section call to lookup_minimal_symbol_by_pc References: <4016E401.2050001@gnu.org> <16409.26976.292424.689823@localhost.redhat.com> <1075433366.29218.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <16417.28535.67901.37314@localhost.redhat.com> <40217AE6.9060500@gnu.org> <4023E404.2090407@gnu.org> <16423.43004.585697.397480@localhost.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00201.txt.bz2 > > > + 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