From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19053 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2012 01:39:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 19043 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Feb 2012 01:39:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vw0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-vw0-f41.google.com) (209.85.212.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:38:57 +0000 Received: by vbip1 with SMTP id p1so4506192vbi.0 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:38:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.29.35 with SMTP id g3mr7897423vdh.25.1329183536166; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:38:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.29.35 with SMTP id g3mr7897419vdh.25.1329183536092; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:38:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.162.7 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:38:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20120213184700.GA31170@redhat.com> References: <20120213184700.GA31170@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA take 4] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738) From: Doug Evans To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jan Kratochvil Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlApThBnpDU8/nAYq1uMPFI54Yr9Za3591HsHC6mj3kKMF08UDrQyQIXiJliZx/sTGyPI+RvWEsvUq9IJfEWjVVJB7kHfRmkJ/6V/7HWtN5uVEjjUNovMis5Zj6CoAoaZKI9jua/dDw1EmJYjfJvcVIJfo8FA== 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00247.txt.bz2 On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > Hi all, > > This patch makes GDB able to set breakpoints on inlined functions. > > This version of the patch has been updated to fix the issues Jan > pointed out with the last version. > > This patch bumps the version number of the .gdb-index to 6, but > it does not remove any of the backwards compatibility code which > I would prefer to do as a separate patch. I agree support for older versions should be a separate patch. However this patch doesn't do that (it removes current acceptance of older versions of the index).