From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15456 invoked by alias); 24 Dec 2005 11:59:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 15449 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Dec 2005 11:59:42 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 24 Dec 2005 11:59:41 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-207-150.inter.net.il [83.130.207.150]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.2-GA) with ESMTP id DFQ51512 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 24 Dec 2005 13:59:32 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 11:59:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Simon Richter CC: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <43AC3B63.7090705@hogyros.de> (message from Simon Richter on Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:01:07 +0100) Subject: Re: Stepping over longjmp presumably broken for glibc Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20051222211734.GA13178@nevyn.them.org> <20051223132039.GA24942@nevyn.them.org> <20051223152021.GA26794@nevyn.them.org> <20051223170913.GA28791@nevyn.them.org> <43AC3B63.7090705@hogyros.de> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-12/txt/msg00192.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:01:07 +0100 > From: Simon Richter > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > If glibc maintainers actively fight the debugger's ability to debug > > their code, we will never succeed in catching up with them. So I'd > > rather they stopped with that attitude and started cooperating with > > us. I can ask RMS to try to influence the glibc team, if you think > > this will help. > > I think it's another issue of debug vs. non-debug binaries. Any debugger > will have a hard time finding the end of a higher-language construct in > a non-debug binary. A debug binary on the other hand should not intermix > constructs and take care to have enough hints for the debugger to find > out stuff. A glibc for debugging should hence store usable pointers, and > people should use a debug build when debugging the glibc. Are we talking about the same thing? I'm not talking about stepping inside setjmp and longjmp, I'm talking about stepping thru code that calls longjmp. When you `step' or `next' thru such a code, you want GDB to follow the jump as the running code will. This should happen even if the library does not have debugging info in it.