From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-53347-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 20865 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2008 04:21:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 20857 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2008 04:21:48 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from heller.inter.net.il (HELO heller.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.23)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 04:21:29 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-233-24.inter.net.il [83.130.233.24]) 	by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) 	with ESMTP id EQV78006 (AUTH halo1); 	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:21:12 +0200 (IST)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 04:21:00 -0000
Message-Id: <uprw2pfib.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: <jebq7mu0zi.fsf@sykes.suse.de> (message from Andreas Schwab on 	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:23:45 +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>
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/msg00379.txt.bz2

> From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
> Cc: eliz@gnu.org, brobecker@adacore.com (Joel Brobecker),
> 	msnyder@specifix.com, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl,
> 	gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:23:45 +0100
> 
> "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > The set of valid expressions varies with the language, but none of
> > them support any string of the form FILENAME:FUNCTION as expression.
> > However, for *some* languages (e.g. C, but not Ada), a function name
> > happens to be a valid expression that evaluates to the address of
> > that function.  It is only due to that "accident" that 
> >   break *FUNCTION
> > does indeed set a breakpoint at the address of FUNCTION (assuming
> > the current language is C).
> 
> 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?