From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B5C5394848E for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 18:03:58 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 0B5C5394848E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [172.16.0.95] (192-222-181-218.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.181.218]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ABEBC1E599; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:03:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Line number zero in line table gives incorrect debugging experince with gdb To: Tom Tromey , Jaydeep Chauhan via Gdb References: <87h7sm905g.fsf@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:03:57 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87h7sm905g.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: tl Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 18:03:59 -0000 On 2020-08-28 12:59 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Jaydeep" == Jaydeep Chauhan via Gdb writes: > > Jaydeep> We have a situation with GDB(latest trunk) and below testcase > Jaydeep> referred for further discussion : > > I tried git master gdb today on the gdb.o you sent, and I see a > different result. I can't run the program in question, but setting a > breakpoint seemed to work: > > (gdb) b main > Breakpoint 1 at 0x1c: file gdb.c, line 5. > > I somewhat expected this, because some fixes here have landed, in > particular: > > commit 876518dd0a0b6fd6f4ad0a0b247db0d6a267db27 > Author: Tom de Vries > Date: Sat Jul 25 00:23:06 2020 +0200 > > [gdb/symtab] Ignore zero line table entries > > Does your tree include this commit? > > If so, then I wonder why I see something different. If not, could you > update to (at least) this revision and then try again? Maybe it's been > fixed. > > Tom > Jaydeep, As I replied in the bug you filed [1], I think this is a duplicate of 26243. The plan was to commit Tom de Vries' patch (which Tom Tromey mentioned above), which brings back the previous behavior. Then, once the GDB 10 branch is created, revert that and merge other patches that handle the situation a bit better, such as: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-July/170645.html https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-July/170751.html Simon [1] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26538 [2] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26243