Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on Linux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-no-Archive: yes Return-Read-To: markus DOT oberhumer AT jk DOT uni-linz DOT ac DOT at Return-Received-To: markus DOT oberhumer AT jk DOT uni-linz DOT ac DOT at Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 01:53:15 +0100 (CET) From: "Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer" To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: RE: Debugging difficulties with GCC 2.95.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id TAA31773 Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk JFYI, the same happened to me some days ago when upgrading to the latest gcc & binutils versions under Debian/Linux. When using `-g' or `-gstabs+3' breakpoints were pointing to completely random code. I didn't bother to look for the exact problem once I found out that `-gstabs' was still working, but I highly suspect a gcc problem. Markus On 24-Feb-2000 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Did someone notice some debugging problems with GCC 2.95.2? For example, > the short test program below, when compiled with GCC 2.95.2, cannot be > stepped on the source level. That is, the following sequence: > > gdb fpfunc > b main > r > s > > causes the program to run to completion after the `s' command, instead of > stepping into dfunc(). This doesn't happen with GCC 2.7.2.1. I tried > both -g and -gstabs with 2.95.2, it behaves the same with both. > > FWIW, the command to compile was "gcc -Wall -O -g -o fpfunc fpfunc.c". > > This might seem like a toy problem, but I have seen similar problems in > much larger programs, like Emacs: some breakpoints simply don't break > even though I *know* the program passed those points. Come to think of > it, all the cases I saw were when the breakpoint was set on the entry to > a function. Again, when compiled with GCC 2.7.2.1, the breakpoints > behave like expected. > > Any ideas? > > >#include > > double dfunc (double a) > { > return a * sqrt (a); > } > > float ffunc (float b) > { > return b * (float)dfunc (b); > } > > int main (int argc, char *argv[]) > { > return (dfunc (argc) > 2 ? 0 : 1); > } > ---- Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer @ http://oberhumer.tsx.org ---- ---- 5E CB 5C 85 DE AF 9E BF E9 DA 7E 6A 39 F8 CC 67 ---- 3 WARPS TO URANUS