Re: [5.1/breakpoint] shlib patch?

[Mark Kettenis <kettenis at science dot uva dot nl>]

Mark Kettenis <kettenis@science.uva.nl> writes:

> No nothing happened.  The patch listed is not quite right :-(.  The
> basic problem is that GDB assumes that shared libraries will be loaded
> at their own, fixed, address.  That's not true with modern shared
> library systems, and becomes problematic whith dynamically loaded
> modules.  I have a simpler patch that's also not quite right, but if
> we cannot fix the problem properly, we might want to add it (as a
> stopgap) to 5.1.

To follow up on my own message.  I tried to write a test that checks
for the broken behaviour, and I managed to come up with something
where event my workaround fails.  I'll start thinking about a proper
solution, but we probably must accept that we cannot fix this properly
for 5.1.

Mark