This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] pr1430
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 7:16 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 01:38:12PM -0700, Matt Rice wrote:
> > here is an attempt at fixing pr1430
> > canonicalizes to file.m:foo or file.m:-[AClass foo]
> > which is how it knows that foo is a function and it shouldn't attempt
> > to look up a method
> > named foo. not sure if this should be done in decode_line_2 based on
> > language setting?
> > so if you move files around or anything you have to reset your
> > breakpoints, but i would take that over an endless loop.
> This isn't safe; there might not be a filename. Aren't we getting
> canonicalized to file.m:-[AClass foo] already?
> build_canonical_line_spec should do it.
no, we're not getting a file.m:-[AClass foo] from decode_line_2
where the canonical is being setup as only an -[AClass foo] not a
in decode_objc the function i'm patching, it only calls
build_canonical_line_spec if i1 == 1, and in this case i1 > 1
further build_canonical_line_spec is incapable of dealing with
symtabs_and_lines, it can be called with symtab_and_line * but it
can't be called multiple times to create canonical filespec from
symtabs_and_lines as it'll just set the first item in the canonical
each time called.
with the existing canonical it would also leak them, since its
expecting to be creating a new canonical, so we kinda want a new
function for this?
I don't know how to get no filename except the case described below...
> A harder version of this problem will come up if you have a
> non-debuggable symbol named foo. We won't have a filename to put
> in front of it. So how do we know it's already been canonicalized?
> This is sort of like what the Apple patch did in the audit trail.
I can't currently test this without first fixing pr1236 there is a
patch in 1261, decode_line_2 never shows any non-debuggable objc
methods in the picker list,
and therefore it isn't possible for there to be any non-debuggable
symbols and i'm always hesitant to guess...
so I suppose i need to attack this first... i will try what mentioned
in your subsequent email after i get that working.