From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31041 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2002 22:56:45 -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 31024 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2002 22:56:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (205.232.38.247) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Aug 2002 22:56:43 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id A9E1DD2CBD; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:19:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] breakpoints and function prologues... Message-ID: <20020822225644.GT25997@gnat.com> References: <6AF1E816-A97C-11D6-B045-00039379E320@> <3D5B42B9.6070201@ges.redhat.com> <20020815135338.GA22990@nevyn.them.org> <3D656658.9D01C76D@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D656658.9D01C76D@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00735.txt.bz2 > 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