From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19288 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2002 21:46:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19271 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2002 21:46:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Aug 2002 21:46:39 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7TLVOl05276 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:31:24 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7TLkau13461; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:46:36 -0400 Received: from romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (remus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.252]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7TLkYe26899; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:46:34 -0700 Received: (from kev@localhost) by romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7TLkQm24782; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:46:26 -0700 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:50:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1020829214626.ZM24781@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [RFA/controversial] move bp by line number past the prologue" (Aug 29, 4:33pm) References: <20020829181524.GC971@gnat.com> <1020829201635.ZM24274@localhost.localdomain> <3D6E8527.3060904@ges.redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney Subject: Re: [RFA/controversial] move bp by line number past the prologue Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg01004.txt.bz2 On Aug 29, 4:33pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > I've reread the thread in which this matter was discussed earlier > > (i.e, the "[RFC] breakpoints and function prologues" messages). Given > > that there was such disagreement before, I doubt that everyone will > > agree with my point of view. If this turns out to be the case, might > > I suggest a user settable option for controlling whether setting a > > breakpoint by line number will always cause the prologue to be > > skipped? That way both sides get the behavior they want. (GUIs can > > set the desired behavior at initialization time.) > > GUI and CLI behavior should be kept independant. Running GDB under a > GUI, should not affect the CLI. Perhaps a different interface is needed for the GUI to use? Kevin