Re: [RFC] breakpoints and function prologues...

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com>]

> In the long term, if we can get GDB to use Dwarf 2 CFI and location
> lists, there will be no difference between setting breakpoints before
> or after the prologue.  The prologue scanning and skipping behavior
> will only be necessary in the absence of that debugging info.

I agree.

In the meantime, may I suggest we install Jim Ingham's patch? I think
the new behavior would be more useful than the current, but maybe I'm
wrong?

Another alternative that has been discussed at ACT is to move the line
where the function declaration is located to an address immediately
past the function prologue. And the prologue would get a separate line
info entry with a line number set to 0. The rationale behind modifying
the compiler is that the compiler knows much better than GDB what part
of the code is the prologue, and therefore should be in a better
position of to provide accurate line information.

But I personally (ie I'm not speaking for ACT) prefer changing GDB. What
do you think?

-- 
Joel