From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22088 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2006 23:08:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 22078 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Apr 2006 23:08:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO sunset.davemloft.net) (216.27.180.168) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 23:08:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] ident=davem) by sunset.davemloft.net with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FQudx-00033I-FJ; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:09:01 -0700 Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 23:08:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20060404.160901.88045460.davem@davemloft.net> To: drow@false.org Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Unreasonable expectation in gdb.base/break.exp From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20060404230535.GA13959@nevyn.them.org> References: <20060404.160227.69457417.davem@davemloft.net> <20060404230535.GA13959@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2006-04/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2 From: Daniel Jacobowitz Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 19:05:35 -0400 > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 04:02:27PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > I think this is perfectly reasonable and correct behavior on > > both gdb's and gcc's part, and this check in break.exp should > > be made a little bit more leanient. > > > > Any objections? > > That seems reasonable to me, but what do you propose testing for > instead? I suppose if we don't check the source file, we'll still be > able to check the function name when we hit the breakpoint. The function name will be the inline function name, because that is the function we will be "in", not main(). And that could basically be anything. Once you have inlining and optimizations enabled, this particular check loses it's sense.