From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17210 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2008 13:25:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 17196 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Apr 2008 13:25:25 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:25:06 +0000 Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JhPR9-0002lI-39 for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:25:03 +0000 Received: from 78.158.192.230 ([78.158.192.230]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:25:03 +0000 Received: from ghost by 78.158.192.230 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:25:03 +0000 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: Pending breakpoints Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:55:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <18372.29471.522929.827100@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080321144600.GB25307@caradoc.them.org> <18420.47315.225382.512236@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080403124823.GA16356@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.10.5 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: 2008-04/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:00:35PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: >> -6 longjmp keep n 0xb7da7be0 >> -7 longjmp keep n 0xb7da7be0 >> -8 longjmp keep n 0xb7da7be0 > > Actually this is the one I consider a problem; it's weird that we look > up the symbol name for this. We set breakpoints on longjmp and > _longjmp and siglongjmp just in case they're different. And that > predates your change. > >> > Even better would be to discard locations when we shlib_disable a >> > breakpoint, and get rid of the shlib_disable flag. But doing that may >> > require that we get rid of shared libraries when we're supposed to. >> >> Would that `solve' this problem? > > I hope so. Then, we won't have any place to remember if any individual location is enabled or disabled. - Volodya