Re: [RFA take 6] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738)

[Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:10:02 +0000
> > From: Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com>
> > Cc: dje@google.com, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org,
> >         mark@klomp.org
> > 
> > > > "Do not reject possibly inconsistent .gdb_index sections."
> > > 
> > > The meaning of that is that the sections being skipped are
> > > inconsistent within themselves.  If that's really what you
> > > meant, I'm fine with the change.
> > 
> > The issue is that with older index section the information in the
> > .gdb_index sections is not consistent with the information that
> > GDB would generate from the DWARF.
> 
> Why does this happen?  Is the information in those sections
> inaccurate?

With the patch GDB now generates psymbols for inlined functions with
no out-of-line version, and these are included in the index.  If you
use an old index these symbols will be missing, with the result that
GDB will not have these symbols and therefore will not be able to set
breakpoints on inlined functions by name.

Cheers,
Gary

-- 
http://gbenson.net/