From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Testsuite addition for x86 linux GDB and SIGALRM fix Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 15:17:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010709151725.A19811@nevyn.them.org> References: <200005192321.e4JNLEv13368@delius.kettenis.local> <3B3ABD6E.1040304@cygnus.com> <3B4A2056.4D58E307@cygnus.com> <20010709143406.A17003@nevyn.them.org> <3B4A2C7C.85C688C4@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00223.html On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 06:13:16PM -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote: > > Stepping in to bar, typing finish, > > and ending up after the call to foo would be exceedingly non-intuitive. > > > > This is true. But a finish would not stop after the call to foo() in > this case. The stepping would be aborted as we entered foo() itself > (note that I said "step", not "next"). The result is quite intuitive > in this case and you just provided one good example of how we could > use it -- one could go "finish"-ing until the desired function was > entered (without the need to step again and without the weird thing > of appearing to stop at the same line you were before). I personally think that this would be more confusing - I finish a function and end up, not in its caller, but in some other function called from the caller? But I've no strong opinion; both options seem a little clunky. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer