From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6082 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2003 16:08:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 25044 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2003 16:02:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mxic2.corp.emc.com) (128.221.31.40) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jun 2003 16:02:00 -0000 Received: by mxic2.corp.emc.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:01:59 -0400 Message-ID: <93F527C91A6ED411AFE10050040665D0083FA5A5@corpusmx1.us.dg.com> From: Mathews_Alex@emc.com To: drow@mvista.com, Mathews_Alex@emc.com Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: RE: Breakpoint on class member function Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:08:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00380.txt.bz2 I just tried with the 6-18 snapshot from cvs and the problem still occurs. -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Jacobowitz [mailto:drow@mvista.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 11:06 AM To: Mathews_Alex@emc.com Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Breakpoint on class member function On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 10:50:29AM -0400, Mathews_Alex@emc.com wrote: > > I'm working with an internally modified gdb 5.3. I'm trying to figure out > if something happens with symbols after a target remote is issued. The > binary is ELF format with debugging information built with gcc 3.2. The > scenario that I'm seeing is the following: > > (gdb) file symbols.gdb > (gdb) b foo::foo1 > Breakpoint 1 @ ... > (gdb) delete 1 > (gdb) target remote /dev/ttyS1 > (gdb) b foo::foo1 > the class foo does not have any method named foo1 > Hint: try 'foo::foo1 or 'foo::foo1 > (gdb) b 'foo::foo1(char *, char *)' > Breakpoint 2 @ ... > > So, before I do a target remote, I'm able to set a breakpoint without the > fully typed member function. Then afterwards, it won't work unless it's > fully typed, so I'm forced to use the hint provided. I haven't modified > anything in the symbol area, but I have made modifications to target remote > related code. > > Any insight would be appreciated. I did see bug 1023, but I wasn't sure if > that applied in my case. This doesn't make any sense to me. Do you have any distributable binaries which reproduce the problem - and can you reproduce it without your local changes? Does "b foo::foo1; delete 1; b foo::foo1" work without the target remote? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer