This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] [PATCH] gdb.base/break.exp
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: [RFA] [PATCH] gdb.base/break.exp
- From: Fernando Nasser <fnasser at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 19:58:48 +0000
- CC: msnyder at cygnus dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Organization: Red Hat Canada Ltd. - Toronto
- References: <200011271852.KAA06943@train2.cygnus.com>
Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
>
> Michael Snyder observes ...
>
> > Would it be worth the effort to define a symbol in the testcase
> > that would be unlikely to be duplicated? Such as maybe
> > "gdb_break_test_unique_symbol"?
>
> Mmmm, this is getting into a can of worms.
>
> What happens if a real user issues the "finish" command from "main" and
> then then decides "I want to run the program again and break on "main"
> this time"? gdb does something that is correct, but confusing.
>
> Perhaps break.exp is at fault because it issues a "finish" command, which
> leaves the program counter in a symbol scope that it does not control,
> and then executes other commands with symbol names in them. That would
> imply more work on break.exp than just changing a name.
>
> Perhaps __libc_start_main should be changed so that its first argument
> is named "mainp", not "main". But I do not want to get into libc patches;
> that is too far from my task at hand.
>
> Michael, would you be happy with "break marker1" or "break marker5"
> or something like that? break.exp already uses these, and so do a lot of
> other gdb test cases. That is my favorite solution right now. But I am
> not averse to "gdb_break_test_unique_symbol" or "gdb_func_for_clear_test".
>
If we have to do this lets follow the tradition. "marker?" is short
and the name implies exactly what it is.
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9