From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8707 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2003 07:01:25 -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 8696 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2003 07:01:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 14 Jan 2003 07:01:24 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18YMxG-0007yZ-00 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 03:01:54 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18YL50-0003Ug-00 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 02:01:46 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 07:01:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: A testsuite update, for the curious Message-ID: <20030114070146.GA13404@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20030114050519.GA5421@nevyn.them.org> <20030114065048.GA12936@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030114065048.GA12936@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00225.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:50:48AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:05:19AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > One FAIL from gdb.gdb/complaints.exp. This has been around for a little > > while; I haven't looked at it yet. Oh, it's a bug I see very frequently. > > Given: > > 93 static int > > 94 captured_command_loop (void *data) > > 95 { > > 96 if (command_loop_hook == NULL) > > 97 command_loop (); > > and GCC 2.95.3 + optimization, we place the breakpoint after the conditional > > branch, and lose. I'm not entirely sure why this happens but it seems that > > it may be a bad interaction with my previous workaround for bad stabs from > > this compiler (but it's not that simple, since I first remember seeing it > > two years or so before I implemented the workaround). I'll dig through my Heh. For the curious, this was: Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:42:19 -0500 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: 54734@bugs.debian.org Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: problems with line numbering And at the time I came to the same conclusion; that we could not trust the debug information regarding the end of the prologue, and we were already getting the right answer in _skip_prologue, and then discarding it. If the prologue skipper says that it hit the end of the prologue, I still don't see the point of using debug info to skip forward farther. I'm sure there's a case where this is appropriate but I can't construct one. Don't think that message got any answers. It's in the dozen or so oldest open bug reports for Debian's GDB package (a lot of the older ones are either fixed, or ObjC related). -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer