Stepping over longjmp presumably broken for glibc

[Jim Blandy]

On 12/30/05, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> That's not what I meant - I meant between a longjmp with "normal"
> unwind information, or with Jim's proposed "magic" unwind information
> that returned to the setjmp target.  There's got to be at least one of
> the former out there somewhere...

Why do you need to?  If I'm thinking this through right, once longjmp
is annotated this way, GDB has no further work to do.  The bug is
"fixed", just not in GDB.