This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [5.1/breakpoint] shlib patch?
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: [5.1/breakpoint] shlib patch?
- From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at science dot uva dot nl>
- Date: 01 Nov 2001 23:58:38 +0100
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, msnyder at redhat dot com
- References: <3B47384A.3000300@cygnus.com> <3BB2AD4B.1040908@cygnus.com> <200109280939.f8S9dgG00358@delius.kettenis.local> <3BE074F9.7040902@cygnus.com>
Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
> So ok. Mark K wrote part of:
>
> > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 00:38:35 -0400
> > From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
> >
> > Just FYI,
> >
> > This is probably the 5.1 release hack candidate (in branch, not in
> > trunk). Every release has one ... Unless someone comes up with
> > something that is.
> >
> > And a hack it is, although Apple's Darwin version of GDB contains an
> > almost identical hack to implement a "future break" command. It seems
> > to work in many real world cases, but it is easy to come up with a
> > test case where the patch doesn't help at all.
> >
> > It seems that the way GDB implements breakpoints-in-shared-libraries
> > was designed for a.out shared library systems (SunOS 4) where shared
> > libraries were loaded at a fixed address in memory. Since ELF shared
> > libraries can (and will) be loaded at any address in memory, things
> > break. Fixing this is not trivial. Therefore, I'm not sure whether
> > we should add this hack to the branch only. I cannot guarantee that
> > things will be fixed on the trunk in the near future.
> >
> > Anyway, for reference I attached the hack.
>
> Can someone give me a good reason to not commit this. Trunk and branch
> ....! While still broken, is it worse than before?
No I can't. It doesn't seem worse than before, and it helps in some
case (although I don't completely understand why). Just yell and I'll
check it in.
Mark