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

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com>]

> The question is, is there a strong reason to change a behavior
> that has been consistent for a very long time (even if undocumented).
> Even if the ability to debug the prologue is un-important for most
> users, it is important to some, and those users (GCC developers,
> for instance) may be quite accustomed to the current behavior.
> I am, for instance...

I would not say a "strong" reason, but as you say, the user base has
shifted, and supposing that ACT's customer base is representative of the
user base, a good part of the users are surprised by the current
behavior.

Incidentally, it would make the new behavior more in line with the
behavior seen when breaking by function name. If later we decide to
change the "break funcname" to stop skipping prologues because GDB now
has all the machinery that makes the skipping unnecessary, I would
likewise argue that we should change back the behavior of "break
linenum" as well.

-- 
Joel