Re: Simple but crucial bug fix to gdb

[Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com>]

Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com> writes:

> "Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote:
> > 
> > Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com> writes:
> > 
> > : [...]
> > : However, we should *never* see a case where pst is NULL, and
> > : textlow_not_set is 1, at the point we see a function.
> > : [...]
> > 
> > Would a gdb_assert() to this effect satisfy all sides?
> 
> gdb_assert causes an abort if the conditional fails.
> I generally think it's better if the debugger doesn't abort
> (unles it's believed to be in an unrecoverable state).

To be honest, i'd consider it an unrecoverable state.
This is because if the compiler is producing such broken debug info
that we see functions outside of where we should, it's likely your
debug info is so screwed up as to be worthless, and just cause you to
think GDB is broken.

-- 
"If the pen is mightier than the sword, in a duel I'll let you
have the pen!
"-Steven Wright