From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14001 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2006 23:05:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 13992 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Apr 2006 23:05:39 -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; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 23:05:38 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FQuad-0003df-Nx; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:05:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 23:05:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "David S. Miller" Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Unreasonable expectation in gdb.base/break.exp Message-ID: <20060404230535.GA13959@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "David S. Miller" , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20060404.160227.69457417.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060404.160227.69457417.davem@davemloft.net> 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: 2006-04/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 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. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery