From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19123 invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2004 13:09:52 -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 19104 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2004 13:09:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO moutng.kundenserver.de) (212.227.126.173) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 21 Jun 2004 13:09:50 -0000 Received: from [212.227.126.160] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BcOYX-00061q-00; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:09:49 +0200 Received: from [217.235.218.249] (helo=[217.235.218.249]) by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BcOYW-0001Yn-00; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:09:48 +0200 Message-ID: <40D6DDFF.7030800@kay-mueller.de> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 13:09:00 -0000 From: Michael Mueller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: m.mueller99@kay-mueller.de, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC]: patch 1 for Sun C compiled target programs References: <40D08A0C.1050606@kay-mueller.de> <200406182147.i5ILlM3f001498@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <200406182147.i5ILlM3f001498@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de auth:acfe4e233830c7fd36d26ada4c2bf87e X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00475.txt.bz2 Mark Kettenis wrote: > Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:57:32 +0200 > From: Michael Mueller > > Setting a breakpoint on a function name or on the first line of a > function doesn't work for Sun C compiled target programs (32 and 64 > bit). I verified this against these compiler versions: > > Sun C 5.5 2003/03/12 > Forte Developer 7 C 5.4 2002/03/09 > Sun WorkShop 6 update 2 C 5.3 2001/05/15 > Sun WorkShop 6 2000/04/07 C 5.1 > > Ah yes. I knew about this. Just forgotten all about it. The funny > code you're seeing is there to work around a bug in GCC 2.95. GDB > fiddles a bit with the line number info trying to fix the breakage. > It's completely bogus, and should go since it messes up real-world > debugging with GCC 2.95 too. Unfortunately doing so will mess up the > testsuite results when using GCC 2.95 :-(. Can you give me some pointer to a mail thread or something describing this? > > I'll try to get this fixed before the 6.2 release. Thanks for giving > me a bit more ammunition for getting this change accepted by the rest > of the crowd. Sounds promising. I filed PR gdb/1682 to remind you guys :-) > > Mark >