From: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>
To: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>,
"gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] breakpoints/19474 [was Re: RFC: branching for GDB 7.11 soon? (possibly Wed)]
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 11:05:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56B33065.1020500@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56B29F17.6020603@redhat.com>
[I am back from vacation...]
Hi Keith,
Thanks for looking at this bug.
On 04/02/16 00:45, Keith Seitz wrote:
> It is also here where we know we are attempting to fetch a list of
> symtabs for the default source file, meaning all symtabs with the "same"
> file name as default symtab.
>
> So the simple (but apparently working?) algorithm simply compares the
> default symtab's fullname vs a reconstruction of the SYMTAB_DIRNAME and
> basename of the "collected" symtab. [It also considers substitute-path.]
The algorithm/rationale sounds good to me. I had a similar fix in my
side, but it causes regressions in the following test cases, in which
DW_AT_comp_dir is empty or incorrect.
gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value-param.exp
gdb.cp/namelessclass.exp
gdb.dwarf2/dw2-common-block.exp
gdb.dwarf2/dw2-single-line-discriminators.exp
but your patch looks better.
>
> I would consider this fairly risky for inclusion into a release without
> sufficient testing in HEAD, but when it comes to releases, I tend to be
> quite conservative.
>
Yes, I agree. The problem itself can't be fixed properly without a big
structural change. We don't have to ship this patch to 7.11, IMO. It
is OK for mainline, however.
> I've appended the patch below. This patch causes no regressions in the
> test suite, and it fixes 19474.
>
>
> I'm sure there are corner cases and a whole bunch of other problems with
> this approach, but at least it is isolated to one place (for better or
> worse).
>
> Anyone have a better idea?
I don't have any. I agree that the directory name comparison in you
next mail is better.
--
Yao (é½å°§)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-04 11:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-01 3:06 RFC: branching for GDB 7.11 soon? (possibly Wed) Joel Brobecker
2016-02-01 13:34 ` Pedro Alves
2016-02-01 17:04 ` Pedro Alves
2016-02-01 19:51 ` Keith Seitz
2016-02-04 0:45 ` [RFC] breakpoints/19474 [was Re: RFC: branching for GDB 7.11 soon? (possibly Wed)] Keith Seitz
2016-02-04 1:33 ` Keith Seitz
2016-02-04 11:05 ` Yao Qi [this message]
2016-02-04 12:31 ` Pedro Alves
2016-08-12 12:00 ` Yao Qi
2016-02-07 8:12 ` RFC: branching for GDB 7.11 soon? (possibly Wed) Joel Brobecker
2016-02-08 18:03 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2016-02-08 19:28 ` Keith Seitz
2016-02-08 20:06 ` Pedro Alves
2016-02-08 20:11 ` Keith Seitz
2016-02-09 5:35 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2016-02-09 14:15 ` Simon Marchi
2016-02-09 14:18 ` Pedro Alves
2016-02-09 14:52 ` Simon Marchi
2016-02-09 18:31 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2016-02-09 11:56 ` Joel Brobecker
2016-02-09 12:37 ` Pedro Alves
2016-02-09 22:37 ` Keith Seitz
2016-02-10 3:40 ` Joel Brobecker
2016-02-10 10:04 ` Pedro Alves
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56B33065.1020500@gmail.com \
--to=qiyaoltc@gmail.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=keiths@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox