From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3270 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2012 18:31:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 3254 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2012 18:31:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:30:50 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2FIUknS016984 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:30:46 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2FIUhqV026585; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:30:44 -0400 Message-ID: <4F623553.5050204@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:31:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: Gary Benson , dje@google.com, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, mark@klomp.org Subject: Re: [RFA take 6] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738) References: <20120314133746.GA5696@redhat.com> <20120314175451.GA20072@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120315105117.GA3076@redhat.com> <833999wxkt.fsf@gnu.org> <20120315181002.GA10803@redhat.com> <831uotwx2d.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <831uotwx2d.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg00558.txt.bz2 On 03/15/2012 06:14 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:10:02 +0000 >> From: Gary Benson >> 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