From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19542 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2006 00:01:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 19534 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Mar 2006 00:01:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:01:30 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k2201N48018178; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 19:01:23 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k2201M122958; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 19:01:23 -0500 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k2201KKt029945; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 19:01:21 -0500 Message-ID: <440635D0.1050704@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:01:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy CC: Mark Kettenis , fnf@specifix.com, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix problem with scope.exp test, skipping past init0 call References: <200602121510.01657.fnf@specifix.com> <200602131047.30428.fnf@specifix.com> <200602131604.k1DG4n9Y025733@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <200602131118.49981.fnf@specifix.com> <200602131648.k1DGmUqx009322@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <8f2776cb0602130947s56ed2f8bs3b66049e8e4c89a3@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0602130947s56ed2f8bs3b66049e8e4c89a3@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00028.txt.bz2 Jim Blandy wrote: > Actually, having seen other's responses here, I'm inclined to say that > the proper fix is to simply drop the code in scope.exp for getting > from the opening brace to the first line. Setting a breakpoint on > main simply shouldn't leave you on the opening brace, and that test > suite logic has always been papering over a bug. > > If prologues contain calls to __main, then the prologue analyzers > should skip them. Are you sure? If skipping __main involves overhead, do you want to incur that overhead every time we want to skip a prologue?