From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10267 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2002 18:45:09 -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 10257 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2002 18:45:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Aug 2002 18:45:08 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17iJQi-0001nm-00; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:45:08 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17iJRP-0006dh-00; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:45:51 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:48:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: Jim Ingham , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] breakpoints and function prologues... Message-ID: <20020823184551.GA25038@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , Jim Ingham , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3D668026.5758C700@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D668026.5758C700@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00762.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 11:34:14AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > But I'm not convinced that the file:line behavior was meant to > behave the same as the func_name behavior. To me, associating > the prologue code with the open curly brace seems natural. > You have to associate it with SOME line (or else make an even > more special case out of it). Haveing a way to specify it by > line seems better than not having a way. Likewise, it seems > practical to me that the epilogue code is associated with the > close-curly brace. That way there is a place to set a breakpoint > after the function is finished but before it returns. (Let's not go into "meant"; it doesn't matter what it was meant to do, just what we want it to do, I think. In this case.) Here's another question. Suppose we have that bane of line-based debugging: a function all on one line. Should clicking on that line breakpoint you before the prologue or after? I say, after. GCC will emit a line marker for the prologue, and then a (same) line marker for the function; I'd say we should prefer the second. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer