From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29874 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2013 14:46:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 29860 invoked by uid 89); 31 Oct 2013 14:46:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: e24smtp05.br.ibm.com Received: from e24smtp05.br.ibm.com (HELO e24smtp05.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.26) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:46:49 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e24smtp05.br.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:46:44 -0200 Received: from d24dlp02.br.ibm.com (9.18.248.206) by e24smtp05.br.ibm.com (10.172.0.141) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:46:42 -0200 Received: from d24relay02.br.ibm.com (d24relay02.br.ibm.com [9.13.184.26]) by d24dlp02.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C43E91DC0063 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:46:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.93]) by d24relay02.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r9VEkb6X47513854 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:46:37 -0200 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r9VEkfMQ031757 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:46:41 -0200 Received: from [9.18.203.178] (sulzbach.br.ibm.com [9.18.203.178] (may be forged)) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id r9VEkek1031749; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:46:40 -0200 Message-ID: <1383230800.5925.110.camel@localhost.localdomain> Subject: Re: Get longjmp target check in breakpoint.c - is it necessary? From: Tiago =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCrmer?= Daitx To: Edjunior Barbosa Machado Cc: GDB Development Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:46:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <52725AB4.5080002@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1383186973.5925.103.camel@localhost.localdomain> <52725AB4.5080002@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13103114-2362-0000-0000-00000C3782B0 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg00194.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 11:27 -0200, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote: > What if you try to move this 'if' to a bit below in the function (right > before "for (i = 0; i < NUM_LONGJMP_NAMES; i++)" loop)? Good catch, I didn't notice the 'if' is kind of an optimization for the scenarios where _get_longjmp_target is not provided. Moving it down before that 'for NUM_LONGJMP_NAMES' loop would work nicely as probes would work. The no changes were detected in the testsuite by moving the 'if' before the 'for' compared to removing it altogether. Regards, Tiago -- Tiago Stürmer Daitx tdaitx@linux.vnet.ibm.com IBM - Linux Technology Center