From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27138 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2007 01:01:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 27129 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jan 2007 01:01:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 01:01:32 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A814348CEE6; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:01:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 01232-01-7; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:01:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (joel.gnat.com [205.232.38.116]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8235348CECA; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:01:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1820434C099; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 05:02:29 +0400 (RET) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 01:01:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: Jim Blandy , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Breaking on C labels? Message-ID: <20070126010229.GG4262@adacore.com> References: <20070125194905.GB4262@adacore.com> <1169767203.22601.128.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1169767203.22601.128.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00328.txt.bz2 > There's a risk that some symbol-lookup function would then select that > label instead of the function entry label when you tried to look up the > nearest label preceeding a given address. Yes, I was actually also thinking about that... Even though GDB tends to prefer debugging information over plain symbols, it still uses minsym lookups during symbol/psymbol lookups... This may not be as straightforward as it looks. In any case, I was just curious about this, wondering whether we broke this feature or never implemented it. Sounds like the latter. There are other things that motivate me more than support for labels. I tend to think that usage of labels in C should be relatively rare, and it's pretty easy to implement ways of working around that limitation. -- Joel