From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4896 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2003 16:38:40 -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 4889 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2003 16:38:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2003 16:38:38 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h03GcP615183; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:38:25 -0600 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:38:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301031638.h03GcP615183@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com Subject: Re: [RFA/PATCH] breakpoint.c: fix until command Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00065.txt.bz2 Hi Daniel, mec> So we might need additional promises. mec> I think it would be reasonable for us to ask for them if we decide mec> we need them. drow> I don't. Promises don't mean anything; we have existing code. A promise in a manual is a contract. If gcc violates its contract, then gcc is at fault, and we can file bug reports against it. That's what I'm getting at. mec> If we are in foo:67, and the user asks to 'until 70', mec> then I bet we can figure out that '70' is in the current function no mec> matter where its object code addresses are. drow> No, we can't. It's a pretty fundamental rule that we can never do drow> anything except display source lines. Consider code re-organization, drow> templates, macros, #line directives... Okay, I am naive here. I see a DW_TAG_subprogram for each function with a DW_AT_decl_line. Can't we use that information to build a table that maps source line #'s to function names? But you know much more about this area then I do so if you are gloomy, I have to be gloomy, too. Michael C