Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:05:43 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r213744 - head/bin/sh Message-ID: <20101013040543.GB13694@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20101013133713.L1075@besplex.bde.org> References: <201010121924.o9CJOgwn059485@svn.freebsd.org> <20101013133713.L1075@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 02:18:33PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, David E. O'Brien wrote: >> Log: >> If DEBUG is 3 or greater, disable STATICization of functions. >> Also correct the documented location of the trace file. > > Private functions should always be static, which no `#define STATIC static' [..] > In theory, the debugging info should make it possible for debuggers > to restore the semantics of not-explictly-inline functions by virtualizing > them, but gdb's debugging info and/or gdb are too primitive to do this > (gdb doesn't allow putting a breakpoint at a deleted static function, This is actually what my motivation is -- trying to set breakpoints and finding GDB was unable to. > Of course, debugging and profiling are magic, > but I don't want to have to adorn all functions with STATICs and > __attributes() (and pragmas for othercc...) to recover historical/normal > or variant debugging or profiling of them. I agree, and would not add STATIC's to a program's code that didn't already have them. But in this case we inherited it from 4.4BSD. I'm just making it actually do something other than being a gratuitous spelling change. I believe I've made things more consistent with r213760. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101013040543.GB13694>