From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22324 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2008 03:25:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 22316 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Mar 2008 03:25:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com (HELO rv-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.198.187) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 03:25:24 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so325230rvb.48 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:25:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.132.8 with SMTP id f8mr1955004rvd.206.1206761122985; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:25:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.193.15 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:25:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8ba6bed40803282025l5d7f4137l98d9b0174b1673cf@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 03:25:00 -0000 From: "Matt Rice" To: "Pierre Muller (gmail)" Subject: Re: [RFC] Allow overloaded general functions Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <47ed1b31.0af6660a.3ddc.ffffb9c5@mx.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <47ed1b31.0af6660a.3ddc.ffffb9c5@mx.google.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: 2008-03/txt/msg00481.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Pierre Muller (gmail) wrote: > The address of 'ADD' is searched again using decode_line_1 function > but there is later an assertion > gdb_assert (sals.nelts == 1) in breakpoint.c at line 7366 > > I could of course remove that assertion and check that in the list > that I get, I do find the same source and line number I already had in > my breakpoint structure, but what is the whole point of this? > Why do we re_set breakpoints that are not pending? > > Is this for the unloading case ? > If this is the case than the modification above is > probably necessary. > However, I am puzzled why other similar case don't have these > troubles (like the decode_objc case.) > the reason this doesn't appear to be an issue with decode_objc is because (gdb) break foo [0] cancel [1] all [2] +[Bar foo] at main.m:30 [3] +[Foo foo] at main.m:19 therefore this line above the assertion 7310: s = b->addr_string; will be unique and the assertion wont fail (i think), though decode_objc currently also has its own problems that i still need to revisit as per Daniels comments http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-03/msg00200.html > What should I do if I get a new additional 'ADD' function in the > loaded library? > i can imagine a [2] pending might handle this but i'm not sure that that won't just open up a can of worms :) the RFA Keep breakpoints always inserted thread sounds like it could help with this re_set ing (sorry its spread out across months in the archives), i've been meaning to try those patches out.