Re: [RFA take 6] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738)

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 03/15/2012 06:14 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:10:02 +0000
>> From: Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com>
>> Cc: dje@google.com, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org,
>>         mark@klomp.org
>>
>>>> "Do not reject possibly inconsistent .gdb_index sections."
>>>
>>> The meaning of that is that the sections being skipped are
>>> inconsistent within themselves.  If that's really what you meant,
>>> I'm fine with the change.
>>
>> The issue is that with older index section the information in the
>> .gdb_index sections is not consistent with the information that GDB
>> would generate from the DWARF.
> 
> Why does this happen?  Is the information in those sections
> inaccurate?

A more high level alternative explanation to Gary's would be
something like:

Older GDB versions didn't use all the info from DWARF that the new
versions do, and so not all the info needed by newer GDBs is in
the older index sections (we only put there what we need).  Using the
index is mutually exclusive with fetching the info out of DWARF.
So if GDB loads an older index, there are bits of info that are
missing.  And, with those missing, a newer GDB will present a
worse debugging experience in terms of features and correctness
than if it didn't use the index at all, but fetched all it needed
from the DWARF.

Hope I got that right.

-- 
Pedro Alves