From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21947 invoked by alias); 13 May 2008 21:11:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 21939 invoked by uid 22791); 13 May 2008 21:11:41 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 May 2008 21:11:23 +0000 Received: from zps35.corp.google.com (zps35.corp.google.com [172.25.146.35]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id m4DLBITJ007262 for ; Tue, 13 May 2008 22:11:18 +0100 Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com (ywj3.prod.google.com [10.192.10.3]) by zps35.corp.google.com with ESMTP id m4DLBHas003774 for ; Tue, 13 May 2008 14:11:17 -0700 Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 3so1551896ywj.79 for ; Tue, 13 May 2008 14:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.68.41 with SMTP id q41mr354012yba.102.1210713076736; Tue, 13 May 2008 14:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.99.13 with HTTP; Tue, 13 May 2008 14:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8ac60eac0805131411q443b8f3awa464e090a5a44aaf@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 01:05:00 -0000 From: "Paul Pluzhnikov" To: "Paul Pluzhnikov" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, "Doug Evans" , "Michael Snyder" Subject: Re: [RFC] Fix for mishandling of "break 'pthread_create@GLIBC_2.2.5'" In-Reply-To: <20080513205941.GA21147@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <8ac60eac0805131135h5e9dd46ev8b7f39e660bf0bb7@mail.gmail.com> <20080513184447.GA12349@caradoc.them.org> <8ac60eac0805131351s241d33a8pd7d9839c51e53a8d@mail.gmail.com> <20080513205941.GA21147@caradoc.them.org> 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: 2008-05/txt/msg00415.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 01:51:57PM -0700, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > > Actually, that appears to already work: > > Then I don't understand. If we're not looking for a field because of > the ".1" then why are we looking for a field? I'll investigate and report back ... > The @ is not inherently special in ELF; there's other strange > characters that are valid in symbol names (minsyms). So inside quotes > we shouldn't be trying to interpret it as anything. Ok, I'll try to rewrite the patch to do just that. Thanks, -- Paul Pluzhnikov