This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [patch] Fix breakpoint at *_start

From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 23:04:22 +0100
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix breakpoint at *_start
References: <20100404210751.GA21664@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <201004042245.58720.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20100404215724.GA24966@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>

On Sunday 04 April 2010 22:57:24, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 23:45:58 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > On Sunday 04 April 2010 22:07:51, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > > Bugreport has been kept updated by the courtesy of John Reiser since 2005.
> > 
> > What bug report?  A PR?
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=162775
> 
> But found now GDB PR 9436 for it.

I think you should still leave 9436 open.  There's more
to fix described in the PR.  Maybe close PR9341, though.

> > The need for -static is a test implementation detail on systems
> > with a userspace dynamic loader Ã la ld.so.  Can I convince you
> > to remove "static" from the test name?
> 
> Do those systems support (=ignore) the "-static" flag?

I can't speak for all systems, but it's conceivable we'll
find some that don't.  Most do support it.  But then,
non ld.so-ish target's won't need -static to trigger the
problem.

-- 
Pedro Alves

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] Fix breakpoint at *_start
  - From: Jan Kratochvil

References:
- [patch] Fix breakpoint at *_start
  - From: Jan Kratochvil
- Re: [patch] Fix breakpoint at *_start
  - From: Pedro Alves
- Re: [patch] Fix breakpoint at *_start
  - From: Jan Kratochvil

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]