From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25889 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2008 01:30:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 25881 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Oct 2008 01:29:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:29:20 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D6D10002; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:29:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D2FE10001; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:29:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KpvCN-0001zo-SO; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:29:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Antony KING Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Strange effect in GDB 6.8 when setting breakpoint on symbol with both strong and weak definitions Message-ID: <20081015012915.GA7656@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Antony KING , gdb@sourceware.org References: <48F49D68.2030701@st.com> <20081014133113.GA11370@caradoc.them.org> <48F50172.40502@st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48F50172.40502@st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00064.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 09:30:42PM +0100, Antony KING wrote: > I have also just tried this with the CVS HEAD of GDB with the same > result. Could it be that GDB is re-evaluating the breakpoint after the > program is launched (since it is a pending breakpoint) and a different > instance of f() being found ? Yes, that's pretty likely. There may not be much about it. > OK. I do not remember seeing anything recently on the GDB list about > this, but is this an area being looked at as a future enhancement ? I agree that it should be improved, but I do not think anyone is planning to work on it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery