From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-f46.google.com (mail-wr1-f46.google.com [209.85.221.46]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61BC93857C48 for ; Tue, 31 May 2022 11:13:57 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 61BC93857C48 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=palves.net Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-wr1-f46.google.com with SMTP id q7so7241299wrg.5 for ; Tue, 31 May 2022 04:13:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=P/DZ9im7c+eLIGtssI6RLoqBhy+djvTvAq1UONPrRs0=; b=sFOZn7FS0P99d4wUGIkPKBdB8mZUOqowBMnGtVxZNPmj4+mzCSEentHJsVvqiHTdzT rbMOyyv6Kzmb7V0whxolRiFYiGzLRbsAlSrJ0pd5kYytIibQ/C/rqHcw8wuLXWJ3Yeix 3m1R+RxixdQNvuP72JTMPBWz+sFbmtnlr3n5q39pHL7mvBpl89ZIH0Wu12CtImvE+Mov +pH/hACNejUo5PoOV8d1lCGvFsqVct18axgKCMf3GeEb7ygdVjUvrQO2is5RNBsl/BsJ l61YUeoaXD2JPMkXV4ZhoJjO0YKnIERTxRk6OBccbSyg01wSJkyS6c02wz69gGC3IiMI qnUw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533i0oDbHLUcdoHypc3i7bJg+sivgTVrWXZCk4FwHb1ZRK5NaHJQ 1m+DNN6SHUsiZ7Ino/eVwfbHYcI5f/E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyLPXQc46mfCIShqfDc+T4jB5UkgQMfucnpRkhqKXGC52By44f5vD0UojsdYasng5qenx91nw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:362:b0:210:2297:45f0 with SMTP id f2-20020a056000036200b00210229745f0mr13196295wrf.44.1653995636362; Tue, 31 May 2022 04:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2001:8a0:f924:2600:209d:85e2:409e:8726? ([2001:8a0:f924:2600:209d:85e2:409e:8726]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m19-20020a05600c4f5300b003942a244f2esm2066000wmq.7.2022.05.31.04.13.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 31 May 2022 04:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <329dd3bc-4a76-873c-006e-4e07aadc8d3c@palves.net> Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 12:13:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1 Subject: [PATCH] Explicitly mention yet-unloaded shared libraries in location spec examples Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20220526194250.2310460-1-pedro@palves.net> <838rqmm7gb.fsf@gnu.org> <6914f754-4e33-5aa1-4ea6-dca9504e8bfe@palves.net> <837d63j8tx.fsf@gnu.org> From: Pedro Alves In-Reply-To: <837d63j8tx.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN, FREEMAIL_FROM, GIT_PATCH_0, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 11:13:59 -0000 On 2022-05-30 17:15, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>> +Here are examples of typical situations that result in a location spec >>>> +matching multiple concrete code locations in your program: >>> Should we also enumerate some situations where a location spec cannot >>> be completely resolved? The text talks about that possibility, but >>> only in passing, with no details or practical examples. >> I've added these examples under the multi-location examples: >> >> +And here are examples of typical situations that result in a location >> +spec matching no code locations in your program at all: >> + >> +@itemize @bullet >> +@item >> +The location spec specifies a function name, and there are no >> +functions in the program with that name. >> + >> +@item >> +The location spec specifies a source file name, and there are no >> +source files in the program with that name. >> + >> +@item >> +The location spec specifies both a source file name and a source line >> +number, and even though there are source files in the program that >> +match the file name, none of those files has the specified line >> +number. >> +@end itemize > Shouldn't this mention explicitly the frequent situation where the > location specifies something in a yet-unloaded shared library? > Maybe. How about this. >From 4fc52ddcdf871c365a3abc6f681fb79ac473728a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Pedro Alves Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 12:06:50 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Explicitly mention yet-unloaded shared libraries in location spec examples Change-Id: I05639ddb3bf620c7297b57ed286adc3aa926b7b6 --- gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo index b497901473d..7886f3eb3dd 100644 --- a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo +++ b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo @@ -9150,11 +9150,13 @@ spec matching no code locations in your program at all: @itemize @bullet @item The location spec specifies a function name, and there are no -functions in the program with that name. +functions in the program with that name, or they only exist in a +yet-unloaded shared library. @item The location spec specifies a source file name, and there are no -source files in the program with that name. +source files in the program with that name, or they only exist in a +yet-unloaded shared library. @item The location spec specifies both a source file name and a source line base-commit: 5541bfdc97936581c0ead915e9117e22f21bdb12 prerequisite-patch-id: 02daf94a0a458024d52b3a10e80608fd3e26738a -- 2.36.0