Re: [RFA] [PATCH] gdb.base/break.exp

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser at cygnus dot com>]

Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> 
> Michael Snyder observes ...
> 
> > Would it be worth the effort to define a symbol in the testcase
> > that would be unlikely to be duplicated?  Such as maybe
> > "gdb_break_test_unique_symbol"?
> 
> Mmmm, this is getting into a can of worms.
> 
> What happens if a real user issues the "finish" command from "main" and
> then then decides "I want to run the program again and break on "main"
> this time"?  gdb does something that is correct, but confusing.
> 
> Perhaps break.exp is at fault because it issues a "finish" command, which
> leaves the program counter in a symbol scope that it does not control,
> and then executes other commands with symbol names in them.  That would
> imply more work on break.exp than just changing a name.
> 
> Perhaps __libc_start_main should be changed so that its first argument
> is named "mainp", not "main".  But I do not want to get into libc patches;
> that is too far from my task at hand.
> 
> Michael, would you be happy with "break marker1" or "break marker5"
> or something like that?  break.exp already uses these, and so do a lot of
> other gdb test cases.  That is my favorite solution right now.  But I am
> not averse to "gdb_break_test_unique_symbol" or "gdb_func_for_clear_test".
> 

If we have to do this lets follow the tradition.  "marker?" is short 
and the name implies exactly what it is.



-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9