From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10329 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2002 18:44:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10322 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2002 18:44:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gaea.projecticarus.com) (195.10.228.71) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Jul 2002 18:44:57 -0000 Received: from [192.168.128.2] (host213-122-169-3.in-addr.btopenworld.com [213.122.169.3]) by gaea.projecticarus.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g69IirV09389; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:44:53 +0100 Subject: Re: Is Single step into C++ virtual thunk still broken? From: Daedalus To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20020709162742.GA5100@nevyn.them.org> References: <1026229835.2426.30.camel@pan> <20020709162742.GA5100@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:44:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1026240215.1532.14.camel@mojo> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 17:27, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > Right now, with your test case, I step into the virtual function's > thunk - end up at a random line - step again, and end up at the > beginning of the virtual function. Which is annoying but not so bad. > The line I end up at is the first line of the Derived class, which > isn't an entirely unreasonable place for the thunk to be but is still > probably wrong. That is a minor GCC bug. > > On the other hand, GDB should skip the thunk and step you right into > the function being called. I'll try to think of a way to do this. > If, as you suggest, a second step (s command) would take me into the virtual function, I could live with the (minor) problem, but here the first step command takes me to the closing } of the virtual function (although if this is random as you suggest, it might not be significant) and the second step (s) command takes me to the next statement after the virtual function call, jumping it completely. Very inconvenient. In order for me to try and replicate your behaviour, could you give me some details? I am running the very latest GNU gdb 2002-07-09-cvs, gcc 3.1 and I compiled the example with gcc -g3 -lstdc++ thunk.cpp Red Hat Linux 7.3 Andew Walrond Project Icarus