From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-53379-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 28201 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2008 18:49:07 -0000
Received: (qmail 28192 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2008 18:49:06 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.22)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:48:38 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-249-38.inter.net.il [84.228.249.38]) 	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) 	with ESMTP id IWK65067 (AUTH halo1); 	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:46:03 +0200 (IST)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:49:00 -0000
Message-Id: <umyr5ppx7.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
CC: uweigand@de.ibm.com, brobecker@adacore.com, msnyder@specifix.com,         mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <jeejci3zgn.fsf@sykes.suse.de> (message from Andreas Schwab on 	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:13:28 +0100)
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA?] Should break FILE:LINENO skip prologue?
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <200801152140.m0FLeMha003566@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> 	<jebq7mu0zi.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <uprw2pfib.fsf@gnu.org> <jeejci3zgn.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00411.txt.bz2

> From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
> Cc: uweigand@de.ibm.com, brobecker@adacore.com, msnyder@specifix.com,
> 	mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:13:28 +0100
> 
> >> Note that the value of FUNCTION is even target dependent.  On ppc64
> >> ordinary function symbols point to function descriptors, whereas code
> >> addresses have symbols that start with a '.'.
> >
> > Are you saying that "break *FUNCTION" will not work on a ppc64, even
> > in a C program?
> 
> It works if you use the correct symbol.  In the absence of debug
> information the non-dot symbol will give the wrong result.

Can you give an example?  I'm not sure I'm following you.  E.g., will
"break *main" work in a C program?

Or are you talking only about the case of missing debug info?