From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4758 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2006 15:58:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 4749 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2006 15:58:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:58:49 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EyWkp-0000wI-0X; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:58:47 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:58:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "H. J. Lu" Cc: GDB Subject: Re: Does gdb support weak/normal symbols? Message-ID: <20060116155846.GA3580@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "H. J. Lu" , GDB References: <20060116004831.GA1186@lucon.org> <20060116014904.GA20402@nevyn.them.org> <20060116154754.GA10336@lucon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060116154754.GA10336@lucon.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00146.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 07:47:54AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 08:49:04PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 04:48:31PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote: > > > foo in weak.c isn't in the symbol table. But gdb sets the breakpoint > > > of foo on it. Shouldn't gdb be clever enough to know to check the > > > other one? > > > > GDB uses the debug information in preference to the ELF symbol table. > > That one says this is a definition of foo. > > > > Eventually "break foo" will breakpoint both of them. > > What did you mean by "Eventually"? Were you saying that it was a bug > and would be fixed in the future? Is anyone working on it? I'd like > to help. Please read the archives for the last few days. This is covered by the same general problem description as "break FILE:LINE" - you have asked for an ambiguous breakpoint, and instead of properly placing multiple breakpoints or prompting GDB has picked one at random. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery