From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17644 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2008 21:05:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 17634 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jan 2008 21:05:14 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from bluesmobile.specifix.com (HELO bluesmobile.specifix.com) (216.129.118.140) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:04:57 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bluesmobile.specifix.com [216.129.118.140]) by bluesmobile.specifix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8553C294; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:04:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA?] Should break FILE:LINENO skip prologue? From: Michael Snyder To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20080109203453.GI21281@adacore.com> References: <20080109151745.GA13181@adacore.com> <1199910284.14654.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080109203453.GI21281@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:05:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1199912695.14654.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 (2.10.3-4.fc7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00221.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 12:34 -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > First of all, thanks for your feedback. > > > If gdb decided not to LET me stop in the middle of the > > prologue, I would be exceedingly pissed off. > > Everyone that I have polled so far told me that they used the > "break *function_name" syntax to break at the beginning of the > prologue. So GDB would not preventing you from doing it. But I habitually do it both ways. What about with a gui? The gui way of doing this would be to click on the line with the opening curly-brace. > I know that I will never be able to make everyone happy. I am > just trying to make GDB more consistent and more useful to > most average users, hopefully without hurting the low-level > hackers too much. Sure, I appreciate that -- just speaking up for the other viewpoint. Don't forget my argument about prologue initializations. Sometimes those involve function calls. A user might very well want to stop AFTER some of those function calls, but BEFORE others, so he could step into them. Especially in C++, where some of them would be constructors. > I'm hoping that the fact that breaking at > the beginning of the prologue is sufficiently uncommon that > the change will be bearable for those who relied on this > behavior. > > But that being said, I also proposed if the pain level was perceived > to be too high to introduce a switch that allows the user to select > which behavior he wants... >