From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7365 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2011 10:22:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 7356 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Sep 2011 10:22:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp.checkpoint.com (HELO michael.checkpoint.com) (194.29.34.68) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 10:22:19 +0000 X-CheckPoint: {4E75D375-7-1B221DC2-FFFF} Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com (il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.26]) by michael.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p8IAM49c024379; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 13:22:05 +0300 Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) by il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) with mapi; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 13:22:04 +0300 From: Avi Gozlan To: "'Tom Tromey'" , "'gdb-patches@sourceware.org'" CC: Avi Gozlan , Matan Ben Gur Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 13:47:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] canonical linespec and multiple breakpoints ... Message-ID: <9C4E85B61203CD419BB3A638E5F6833301E5CA98B64F@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com> x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 2011-09/txt/msg00348.txt.bz2 Hello, On the basis of your proposal dealing with supporting multiple breakpoints = and the discussion that followed it, I would like to raise some questions. = These issues are highly relevant for our needs (the need was first describe= d in bug 12313 in the GDB bug database). Among varying GDB uses, we use GDB to debug a process which loads (using dl= open) the same exact library multiple times (in fact there are copies of th= e library otherwise dlopen returns the same handle for each load). We find = your proposal very useful for us to be able to attach to the process and de= bug a specific library. Though, we do have some questions and suggestions. = Pardon technical inaccuracies in GDB terminology. =20 1) The proposal discusses function breakpoints. Will it also enable inspect= ing global and static variables from a specific library? 2) Just to make sure we understand the interaction of the user interface wi= th "set multiple-symbols": it will be possible to request GDB for a specifi= c variable/function by a library name without getting it from all libraries= or get a question (ask) each time, right? Otherwise it will be very inconv= enient to inspect multiple variables within a given library. 3) Will the library specific interface know how to handle non-stripped libr= aries that are compiled without debug information (no "-g")? 4) We suggest adding an option to enable the GDB backtrace command to show = the library name for each function. In our usage case we have scenarios in = which the libraries interact with each other and a backtrace showing the li= brary name for each function can enable us understand the interaction perfe= ctly. 5) Perhaps a little pedantic but what about handling symbols with different= names in libraries with identical name which lie in different paths? Thanks, Avi