From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10777 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2007 23:26:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 10765 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jan 2007 23:26:44 -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 23:26:39 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89AC548CCC1; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 18:26:36 -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 20412-01-6; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 18:26:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nile.gnat.com [205.232.38.5]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1170448CC27; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 18:26:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <459D8D2E.2010405@adacore.com> Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 23:26:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: gdb@sourceware.org, brobecker@adacore.com Subject: Re: New Ada failure References: <20070104202406.GA26522@nevyn.them.org> <459D8940.3030908@adacore.com> <200701042321.l04NLsve013656@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <200701042321.l04NLsve013656@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> 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/msg00083.txt.bz2 Mark Kettenis wrote: >> Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:09:52 -0500 >> From: Robert Dewar >> >> 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. > > But wouldn't it be useful to be able to catch exceptions, or at least > know that an exception was raised, even if you can't look at its > details? Sure, but you can do so fine if you build the library correctly, which means not removing debugging information for this unit! Not clear it is worth extra work to deal with misconfigured libraries. > > Mark