From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19599 invoked by alias); 24 Dec 2002 01:02:01 -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 19578 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2002 01:02:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 24 Dec 2002 01:02:00 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18QfKh-0005SO-00; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:02:16 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18QdTO-0002jJ-00; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 20:03:06 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:23:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/PATCH] breakpoint.c: fix until command Message-ID: <20021224010306.GA10409@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <15875.24035.153991.390184@localhost.redhat.com> <3E07A1F2.E7B77C89@redhat.com> <20021224000211.GA8155@nevyn.them.org> <3E07B0DC.CC733B10@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E07B0DC.CC733B10@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00657.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 04:57:00PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 03:53:22PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > > > Elena Zannoni wrote: > > > > > > > > This fixes the problem reported in: > > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2002-11/msg00144.html > > > > > > > > testsuite patch coming > > > > > > Elena, can you sum up in a sentence or two, what this change > > > is intended to do? > > > > [Since I happen to be reading email right now, I'll do a sketchy > > imitation.] > > > > The problem is that we were marking the breakpoint on the > > user-specified line with the current frame. But when we hit that > > breakpoint, if it's in a different function, it will have a different > > frame. Right now we see that the frames don't match and resume > > executing. > > > > Oops. > > OK, thanks. But we _need_ to mark the breakpoint with the current > frame, because if the breakpoint is in the current frame, we don't > want to stop in an inner recursive call, ie. not until the current > frame hits the breakpoint. > > So this needs further consideration, and I don't think it can > be approved as is. OK. Is that really what you expect "until" to do, though? I'd be pretty surprised if an inner function call executed that line without stopping. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer