From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28496 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2009 17:12:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 28487 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Sep 2009 17:12:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:12:09 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3DB02BAB5B; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:12:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id WC3zsbIf2ZV6; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:12:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C4C2BAC09; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:12:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D78FAF5935; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:12:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Paul Pluzhnikov Cc: Jack Howarth , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created Message-ID: <20090920171154.GT7961@adacore.com> References: <20090920025432.GA22104@bromo.med.uc.edu> <8ac60eac0909192050g256a1076r3e28fd0a8cfd7f41@mail.gmail.com> <20090920143231.GQ7961@adacore.com> <8ac60eac0909200802m45f2675epa6e56001af4b491@mail.gmail.com> <20090920152741.GR7961@adacore.com> <8ac60eac0909200914g39a2d471j601aebd995da1d02@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8ac60eac0909200914g39a2d471j601aebd995da1d02@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00247.txt.bz2 > Ah, I see. It's true that overlapping sections are already filtered > out, but it is not guaranteed which ones, and in fact the .text from > a.exe is more likely to be discarded then the .text from (some) foo.o, > because the latter will generally have lower section start. Hmmm, I knew that it was not guaranteed that the .o sections would be discarded, but I was hoping that it just happened to be the case. ISTR that this was the case when I looked at the warnings that were printed. I assumed that, after relocation, the .text section of the .o files should always be equal or higher than the .text section of the executable... > Presumably you did a fair amount of testing on that. > > If so, should I commit that patch on the 7.0 branch (and perhaps on > the trunk) as a temporary workaround, until Tristan comes up with a > better fix? That's what I suggested we do a few days ago, before we cut the branch. But I haven't had a chance to test this much. Right now, AdaCore has a separate branch for x86-darwin GDB, that we used to develop the port. We're trying to move to gdb-7.0, but we haven't had time to complete the integration and until then, testing is difficult. I definitely plan on completing this part before 7.0 is out, however. In the meantime, I'll see if I can reproduce Jack's issue with the latest sources. -- Joel