From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31883 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2014 11:48:27 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 31873 invoked by uid 89); 4 Dec 2014 11:48:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,WEIRD_QUOTING autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com Received: from e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com (HELO e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com) (195.75.94.112) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:48:25 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:48:22 -0000 Received: from d06dlp03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.20.15) by e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.146) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:48:19 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by d06dlp03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB5A1B08040 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:48:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.216]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id sB4BmIfg55181534 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:48:18 GMT Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id sB4BmHf6014651 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 04:48:18 -0700 Received: from br87z6lw.de.ibm.com (dyn-9-152-212-196.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.212.196]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id sB4BmHAw014625; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 04:48:17 -0700 From: Andreas Arnez To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PR symtab/17602] Fix arguments to symbol_name_cmp References: Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:48:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Tue, 25 Nov 2014 20:20:07 -0800") Message-ID: <87k327ocu6.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14120411-0025-0000-0000-000002B975CF X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg00086.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 26 2014, Doug Evans wrote: > diff --git a/gdb/linespec.c b/gdb/linespec.c > index 5325702..35b0205 100644 > --- a/gdb/linespec.c > +++ b/gdb/linespec.c > @@ -982,7 +982,12 @@ iterate_name_matcher (const char *name, void *d) > { > const struct symbol_matcher_data *data = d; > > - if (data->symbol_name_cmp (name, data->lookup_name) == 0) > + /* The order of arguments we pass to symbol_name_cmp is important as > + strcmp_iw, a typical value for symbol_name_cmp, only performs special > + processing of '(' to remove overload info on the first argument and not > + the second. The first argument is what the user provided, the second > + argument is what came from partial syms / .gdb_index. */ > + if (data->symbol_name_cmp (data->lookup_name, name) == 0) > return 1; /* Expand this symbol's symbol table. */ > return 0; /* Skip this symbol. */ > } This seems to cause a regression for the Ada testcase "operator_bp.exp": > [...] > FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "+" (got interactive prompt) > FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "-" (got interactive prompt) > FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "*" (got interactive prompt) > FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "/" (got interactive prompt) > FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "mod" (got interactive prompt) > FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "rem" (got interactive prompt) > FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "**" (got interactive prompt) > [...] See https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-testers/2014-q4/msg00126.html The problem occurs like this: (gdb) break "+" Function ""+"" not defined. Make breakpoint pending on future shared library load? (y or [n]) n (gdb) FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "+" (got interactive prompt) When reverting the patch, the test succeeds again.