This is the mail archive of the 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: Stepping over longjmp presumably broken for glibc

> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:01:07 +0100
> From: Simon Richter <>
> Cc:
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > If glibc maintainers actively fight the debugger's ability to debug
> > their code, we will never succeed in catching up with them.  So I'd
> > rather they stopped with that attitude and started cooperating with
> > us.  I can ask RMS to try to influence the glibc team, if you think
> > this will help.
> I think it's another issue of debug vs. non-debug binaries. Any debugger 
> will have a hard time finding the end of a higher-language construct in 
> a non-debug binary. A debug binary on the other hand should not intermix 
> constructs and take care to have enough hints for the debugger to find 
> out stuff. A glibc for debugging should hence store usable pointers, and 
> people should use a debug build when debugging the glibc.

Are we talking about the same thing?  I'm not talking about stepping
inside setjmp and longjmp, I'm talking about stepping thru code that
calls longjmp.  When you `step' or `next' thru such a code, you want
GDB to follow the jump as the running code will.  This should happen
even if the library does not have debugging info in it.

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