On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:19:52AM -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Hi - > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 01:53:12PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > [...] > > > > > (gdb) bt > > > > > #0 0x00000000100004d0 in .f () > > > > > #1 0x0000000010000500 in .main () > > [...] > > But I don't see why that has to leak through to the user in a backtrace > > where they just want to know which function name corresponds to a > > specific address. The extra dot doesn't add any value in this case and > > is just confusing. > > Not entirely -- the two locations are distinct, and a breakpoint can > pass through one and not the other, which could make a difference to > certain low-level debugging tasks.
I am not sure I follow how this would work. A function descriptor symbol doesn't point to executable code, just to some data that describes the function and where its entry point is. Or do you mean someone could place a data watchpoint on it? I don't think that will be easily confused, even when doing such low level debugging. But my point was more that in a backtrace it is more natural to associate the actual function name with the address of the code than prefixing it with an artificial dot. Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ elfutils-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/elfutils-devel
