From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30758 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2006 01:37:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 30750 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Apr 2006 01:37:12 -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; Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:37:12 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FQwxJ-0004SB-NU; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:37:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:37:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "David S. Miller" Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Unreasonable expectation in gdb.base/break.exp Message-ID: <20060405013709.GA17095@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "David S. Miller" , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20060404230535.GA13959@nevyn.them.org> <20060404.160901.88045460.davem@davemloft.net> <20060404231225.GA14228@nevyn.them.org> <20060404.162052.87950568.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060404.162052.87950568.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/msg00027.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 04:20:52PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 19:12:25 -0400 > > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 04:09:01PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Well, no, it shouldn't be. It should be some day, but for the moment, > > gdb will report that you're in main no matter what's been inlined into > > it. > > Indeed, you are right. I just rechecked exactly what happens > and it does report "main ( ... ) at stdlib.h:333" > > So do you agree to change the check to just verify that we are > in fact in main()? Yes, I think so. I've had this failure in different compilers before. Eventually, we'll have to relax the name check too, when we start reporting inlined functions properly. But no one is working on that right now; I had some patches to do it, but they were very buggy. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery