From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25169 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2007 23:09:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 25144 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jan 2007 23:09:57 -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; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 23:09:52 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630CF48CC45 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 18:09:50 -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 18355-01-2; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 18:09:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nile.gnat.com [205.232.38.5]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E823048CC27; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 18:09:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <459D8940.3030908@adacore.com> Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 23:09:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: New Ada failure References: <20070104202406.GA26522@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20070104202406.GA26522@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2007-01/txt/msg00079.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Breakpoint 1, main (argc=1, argv=140737488347304, envp=140737488347320) at b~foo.adb:99 > 99 Ensure_Reference : System.Address := Ada_Main_Program_Name'Address; > (gdb) catch exception > Cannot break on __gnat_raise_nodefer_with_msg in this configuration. > > The symbol is present, in my shared libgnat.so. I have a stripped > libgnat, unsurprisingly. Ada.Exceptions needs to be compiled with debug information and not stripped, so if you strip, you will definitely disable this lookup > I think the problem is that you're using > lookup_symbol; isn't lookup_minimal_symbol sufficient? Wouldn't really help, since once we break on this routine, we look at its arguments and local variables, so we really need full debug information for this routine. At least that's my understanding. >