From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26397 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2011 21:25:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 26379 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Nov 2011 21:25:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_YM X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net (HELO shards.monkeyblade.net) (198.137.202.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:24:49 +0000 Received: from localhost (cpe-66-65-61-233.nyc.res.rr.com [66.65.61.233]) (authenticated bits=0) by shards.monkeyblade.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAQLOik6009183 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:24:47 -0800 Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:25:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20111126.162444.1128646032611845044.davem@davemloft.net> To: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: symbol versioning... From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20111126211100.GA18383@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20111126.155633.969368403874195827.davem@davemloft.net> <20111126211100.GA18383@host1.jankratochvil.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00118.txt.bz2 From: Jan Kratochvil Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 22:11:00 +0100 > On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:56:33 +0100, David Miller wrote: >> These all fail on my sparc systems because my libc.so has two printf >> symbols, each with a different ELF version. The older version appears >> first in the dynamic symbol table, so that's the one which GDB uses, and >> it's therefore not the one the executable will actually call. > > I should sometimes commit this patch: > Re: [patch] Fix C++ demangling of minsyms with symver > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-06/msg00045.html > > Maybe implementing its part: > # One can see the default resolving to the @@ variant is not implemented. Not > # sure if it should be but let that be a possible incremental patch in the > # future. > > would solve this problem? Thanks a lot for the reference, I'll take a look! >> I can think of two ways to handle this: > > (3) With Tom Tromey's pending linespec patch GDB maybe could put a breakpoint > on all the versions of such symbol. Even better :-)