From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13168 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2005 01:17:54 -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 13131 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jun 2005 01:17:43 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 01:17:43 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DiMXC-000813-1r; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:17:38 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 01:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Fred Fish Cc: Andrew Haley , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [Gdb-discuss] Re: x86 Q: why aren't the SSE intrinsics always_inline? Message-ID: <20050615011738.GA30673@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sourceware.org References: <96B69900-04F0-406A-9B53-F74B6D2B8071@apple.com> <17070.41423.645043.983123@zapata.pink> <20050614145552.GA3952@nevyn.them.org> <200506142112.39968.fnf@specifixinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200506142112.39968.fnf@specifixinc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00153.txt.bz2 [Redirecting off gdb-discuss again] On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:12:39PM -0400, Fred Fish wrote: > On Tuesday 14 June 2005 10:55, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > better support for inline functions, which is already on the gdb > > roadmap > > Where's the roadmap? I'm just starting to look at this very issue > and would be good to know what is planned or in progress. I was being figurative :-) We already know we need to do it. I already have a 30% or so hack which handles creating inline function frames. It works well enough for simple backtraces. But the symbol table side of it is all rotten, so it's not very useful - segfaults a lot. I also have the first 20% or so of setting breakpoints on multiple locations implemented, which is a necessary partner to that. But that's even less finished. Ask me if you want either set of code. The latest version of the latter is in the gdb-patches archive from early this year. I don't think I ever posted the former - too gross. If you want to work on anything without duplicating effort, it behooves _you_ to discuss it on the mailing lists first. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC