From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11165 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2012 18:36:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 11109 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2012 18:36:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:36:27 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M0X00J00VMGC500@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:36:24 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.179.236]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M0X00H7BVONLMZ0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:36:24 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:36:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFA take 6] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738) In-reply-to: <4F623553.5050204@redhat.com> To: Pedro Alves Cc: gbenson@redhat.com, dje@google.com, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, mark@klomp.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83zkbhvhhz.fsf@gnu.org> 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> <4F623553.5050204@redhat.com> 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00562.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:30:43 +0000 > From: Pedro Alves > CC: Gary Benson , dje@google.com, > jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, mark@klomp.org > > 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. Thanks. So I think "incomplete" was a better word. But if for some reason we don't want that, how about "inaccurate"? E.g. Do not reject obsolete .gdb_index sections with possibly inaccurate info. However, if everyone else is tired of bikeshedding, go ahead with whatever you like.