This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: gdb not detecting function sections correctly for functions in overlays
- From: Arnab Bhaduri <arnab at cadence dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "gdb at sourceware dot org" <gdb at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:38:13 -0700
- Subject: RE: gdb not detecting function sections correctly for functions in overlays
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <D3CD0638AD056342925227F12D6A2AB50913A859FE at MAILSJ3 dot global dot cadence dot com> <8761t580mi dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <D3CD0638AD056342925227F12D6A2AB50913E2E289 at MAILSJ3 dot global dot cadence dot com> <8738ntgsd1 dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <5266B694 dot 5090006 at redhat dot com>
Tensilica has previously provided code (I forgot to mention that I'm working on the Tensilica Xtensa, which is now part of Cadence). I haven't been working on this for long and still haven't figured out how to deal with this stuff inside Cadence, so it might take a little while. I'll need to figure that out before I send you any patches. I can certainly file a bug.
Thanks
Arnab
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro Alves [mailto:palves@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:32 AM
> To: Tom Tromey
> Cc: Arnab Bhaduri; gdb@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: gdb not detecting function sections correctly for functions
> in overlays
>
> On 10/22/2013 05:52 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>>> "Arnab" == Arnab Bhaduri <arnab@cadence.com> writes:
> >
> > Arnab> I have made a couple of local changes that make things work
> > Arnab> better for me. Perhaps you could give me your opinion on these
> (described below).
> >
> > Arnab> 1) add_location_to_breakpoint() (breakpoint.c) - this calls
> > Arnab> set_breakpoint_location_function() which sets the function name
> > Arnab> incorrectly because it uses the PC-to-section lookup. I
> > Arnab> modified this like so:
> > [...]
> >
> > I think a patch would be simpler to understand.
>
> Assuming the patch is either small (10 lines or so), or we can get the
> copyright assigned, which would be great. I don't see Cadence mentioned
> in copyright.list though.
>
> Otherwise, a description of the bug might actually be better, for
> allowing a clean room implementation.
>
> --
> Pedro Alves