This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] gdb: Don't skip prologue for explicit line breakpoints in assembler
- From: Andrew Burgess <andrew dot burgess at embecosm dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:27:55 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: Don't skip prologue for explicit line breakpoints in assembler
- References: <20190612123403.14348-1-andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> <20190619181147.69974f43@f29-4.lan> <20190620205759.GI23204@embecosm.com> <20190620232314.GJ23204@embecosm.com> <406d910b-8b63-1e93-d340-7e9ab841ad0b@redhat.com> <20190622110558.GK23204@embecosm.com> <dec5d0cc-2a84-eddb-37dd-e9a8b8001f56@redhat.com> <20190701171213.GU23204@embecosm.com> <1a5ad9a3-ec42-c733-fee8-fc051e6d31de@redhat.com>
* Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> [2019-07-01 19:21:43 +0100]:
> On 7/1/19 6:12 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> >> Did you check whether we're already setting explicit_line when
> >> parsing "b -line N", i.e., when using the explicit locations syntax?
> > In current HEAD explicit_line will only get set for the clear, edit,
> > list, and 'info line' commands. Any variation of setting breakpoints
> > will never set explicit_line.
>
> OK, but I was also curious to know whether your patch already handles that
> case, or whether we need to set explicit_line somewhere else too.
> Maybe it already works if we end up in decode_digits_ordinary too
> with the explicit syntax.
Sorry I misunderstood your question.
Yes, if I use 'break -line N' then I do end up in
decode_digits_ordinary, so explicit_line will be set after my patch.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> Thanks,
> Pedro Alves