From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Berlin To: Michael Snyder Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Daniel Berlin , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Simple but crucial bug fix to gdb Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:14:00 -0000 Message-id: <87y9rcqd98.fsf@dynamic-addr-83-177.resnet.rochester.edu> References: <3.0.5.32.20010530142745.01470ec0@pophost.pdxuxbre.lmc.com> <20010530173650.A21397@redhat.com> <3B15711D.BEA4B77E@cygnus.com> <3B1638A2.79AE4BCF@redhat.com> <20010531194656.A27403@redhat.com> <87ofs9hw29.fsf@dynamic-addr-83-177.resnet.rochester.edu> <3B17CA59.6C83B926@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00006.html Michael Snyder writes: > "Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote: > > > > Daniel Berlin 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