From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30338 invoked by alias); 12 May 2009 03:13:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 30330 invoked by uid 22791); 12 May 2009 03:13:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,KAM_STOCKGEN,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout1.012.net.il (HELO mtaout1.012.net.il) (84.95.2.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 May 2009 03:13:39 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout1.012.net.il by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KJI00I00GV09L00@i-mtaout1.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 12 May 2009 06:13:36 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.73.80]) by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KJI00FOCGYNJR70@i-mtaout1.012.net.il>; Tue, 12 May 2009 06:13:36 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 03:13:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix "break foo" when `foo's prologue ends before line table In-reply-to: <20090511212006.GA16436@caradoc.them.org> To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83r5yvxbbw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83skjebbef.fsf@gnu.org> <20090511125644.GD14773@adacore.com> <83zldjxzzr.fsf@gnu.org> <20090511192709.GG14773@adacore.com> <83tz3rxt4p.fsf@gnu.org> <20090511212006.GA16436@caradoc.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-05/txt/msg00235.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:20:06 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > Do you really want "break foo" to break on the line where a () is > > > called? > > > > It's hard to say, really. There are arguments for both, but I > > personally tend to think that stopping on the call to `a' is what I'd > > want. > > > > What do others think? > > I agree with Pedro. You mean, with Joel. Okay, I will go with that approach, then. But do we agree that my general idea is the way to go, as opposed to fixing the lineinfo table when it is read from the COFF file? > > > /* The order of entries in the linetable is significant. They should > > > be sorted by increasing values of the pc field. > > > > Well, granted, I've seen that comment. But (a) are we sure all of our > > comments are necessarily accurate to rely on them?, and (b) it > > continues to say > > This data structure relies on being sorted by PC. You can see e.g. in > find_pc_sect_line. Right. Do you also agree with Joel that looping on all symtabs is not necessary, in general, and that using the single symtab given by SYMBOL_SYMTAB(sym) is enough?