From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17500 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2003 22:39:38 -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 17488 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2003 22:39:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2003 22:39:37 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h03MC4B19584 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:12:04 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h03MdPa20252 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:39:25 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (romulus-int.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.46]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h03MdOl23344 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:39:24 -0500 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 06BBAFF79; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:43:46 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15894.4642.258968.5481@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 22:39:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/PATCH] breakpoint.c: fix until command In-Reply-To: <20030103215435.GA32397@nevyn.them.org> References: <200301030415.h034FYW05352@duracef.shout.net> <20030103045917.GA29041@nevyn.them.org> <3E160607.11B380B9@redhat.com> <20030103215435.GA32397@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00108.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 01:52:07PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > > > I'm still undecided about what to do if LOCATION is not in the > > > function. Maybe you're right and we should make this an error. What > > > if LOCATION is in the frame that called this one? > > > > My thoughts have run in similar grooves. ;-) > > The sticking point is "is in the current function?" > > I believe we can answer that, by calling find_pc_partial_function. > > That will give us the function's address range, and we can then > > immediately determine whether is in (use frame-relative bp), > > or out (don't do that). > > I think we're making actual progress here.... I agree. > but this is the opposite of what we agreed on a month ago. We are giving up on the until foo behavior now. Anyway, do an 'help until' in gdb.... the text of it goes back as far as the frame checking code, which just shows that this whole thing was botched from day one. Elena > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer