From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11827 invoked by alias); 25 Aug 2002 15:17:54 -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 11819 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2002 15:17:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Aug 2002 15:17:53 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17iz9F-0008FW-00; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 10:17:53 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17izA0-0002fL-00; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 11:18:40 -0400 Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:21:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Jim Ingham , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] breakpoints and function prologues... Message-ID: <20020825151840.GA10070@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Jim Ingham , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <30A3EC98-B7A5-11D6-BB10-000A277A8808@apple.com> <3D68EAAE.8050007@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D68EAAE.8050007@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00824.txt.bz2 On Sun, Aug 25, 2002 at 10:33:18AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Yes, we could change -break-insert to do this. > > > >It would still break when somebody uses the console to set breakpoints > >from within Project Builder, however. Like with Insight, we try to > >support the console as well as we can from PB (we don't do as good a job > >as Insight, but we are working towards it). > > We're talking Mac here right? I thought (sarcasm) Mac users did > everything using the GUI and AppleScript. > > >I guess we could go note the breakpoint set event, delete the breakpoint > >that was just set IF it was set with file:line, and reset it with the > >"move me past the prologue" cookie. But this seems a bit of a hack. > > Is your [apple] bug with a GUI user finding that a breakpoint on a > function confuses the GUI; or with a GUI user finding that entering the > CLI command ``break file.c:10'' confuses the GUI? (A CLI user would > have used ``break func'' :-) > > We've concluded that the former can be fixed without any need to change > the CLI. But I still believe that the CLI command should skip prologues in the first place, for at least as long as ``break func'' does. And a CLI user might _not_ have used break func. Here's a perfectly good reason why: static functions do not have unique names (they don't always have unique line numbers either but that's a different problem). Sometimes placing breakpoints by line number is the only way to get them in the right place. This happens in BFD all the time. > For the latter, the user can still enter ``break *0x1234'' and confuse > the GUI. Should GDB ``helpfully'' move that as well? I think the only > thing that can be done is ensure that the GUI doesn't get confused (or > at least gets confused gracefully :-). For instance, realise that its > got a PC in the prologue and display ``incomplete stack frame''. I agree that the GUI should not get confused. But I'd still like to see break line and break func work the same way. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer