From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-8157-listarch-gdb=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 15906 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2002 04:06:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 15886 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2002 04:06:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2002 04:06:12 -0000
Received: from cse.cygnus.com (cse.cygnus.com [205.180.230.236])
	by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA05999;
	Mon, 25 Mar 2002 20:06:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from kev@localhost)
	by cse.cygnus.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2Q45nT14742;
	Mon, 25 Mar 2002 21:05:49 -0700
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 20:06:00 -0000
From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <1020326040549.ZM14741@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
        "Re: gdb doesn't work well with DSO on Linux/mips" (Mar 23, 11:52am)
References: <20020322234648.A24693@lucon.org>  <20020323000803.A25045@lucon.org> 
	<20020323115239.A29855@nevyn.them.org>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>, "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
Subject: Re: gdb doesn't work well with DSO on Linux/mips
Cc: GDB <gdb@sources.redhat.com>, Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00238.txt.bz2

On Mar 23, 11:52am, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> > 2002-03-22  H.J. Lu  (hjl@gnu.org)
> > 
> > 	* config/mips/tm-linux.h (SOLIB_BKPT_NAME): New.
> 
> Actually, I'd prefer the former (add __start to bkpt_names, after
> _start).  One less thing to worry about when multi-arching.

Yes, I prefer this as well.

> Also, it may be that we should check for the dynamic linker breakpoint
> symbols in the currently loaded BFD, if there is no .interp section. 
> That would explicitly improve debugging of the dynamic linker.  Kevin,
> does that sound reasonable?

Wouldn't this cause problems when debugging ordinary statically linked
programs?  After all, we'd be putting solib event creation breakpoints
on symbols like main and _start.

Or were you referring to symbols like r_debug_state, etc?  If that's
the case, I think it'd be okay.

Kevin