This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738)
- From: Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 13:48:17 +0000
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Allow setting breakpoints on inline functions (PR 10738)
- References: <20111129150200.GB3425@redhat.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Gary" == Gary Benson <email@example.com> writes:
> Gary> This patch, which applies on top of Tom's ambiguous linespec work,
> Gary> allows you to set breakpoints on inlined functions. Although it
> Gary> can't be committed until Tom's stuff goes in, I'm posting it for
> Gary> feedback now.
> I noticed that the manual node "Inline Functions" says:
> There are some ways that GDB does not pretend that inlined function
> calls are the same as normal calls:
> * You cannot set breakpoints on inlined functions. GDB
> either reports that there is no symbol with that name, or
> else sets the breakpoint only on non-inlined copies of the
> function. This limitation will be removed in a future
> version of GDB; until then, set a breakpoint by line number
> on the first line of the inlined function instead.
> I think this needs a small update.
I removed that entire bullet point.
> Also I think this feature deserves a NEWS entry.
I added "* GDB can now set breakpoints on inlined functions." on the
> I checked it out and played with it a little. I found one little
> bug. Using the inline-break test case from the patch:
> (gdb) p &func1
> $1 = (int (*)(int)) 0x4003d8 <main+8>
> That is, it chooses the location of the inline function as the
> address of the function when evaluating an expression. I think
> this is wrong. Instead, it should ignore inline instances here,
> returning the address of the out-of-line instance. And, if there
> is no out-of-line (as in this case), it should error.
> I think one possible way to do this would be to put a flag on
> symbols, marking inline instances, and then have ordinary symbol
> lookup ignore such symbols. I am not sure how hard this would be.
> There might also be other approaches.
There already is such a flag: SYMBOL_INLINED (sym). I've pushed
a fix to the branch to make lookup_block_symbol skip over inlined
symbols. It works as you ask with no regressions.
I won't make a new patch yet as I need to look at some of Jan's