From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7262 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2008 15:51:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 7253 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jan 2008 15:51:25 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:51:06 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C269811D; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:51:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F6DD980E0; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:51:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JCzgN-0005rK-Cd; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:51:03 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, msnyder@specifix.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA?] Should break FILE:LINENO skip prologue? Message-ID: <20080110155103.GB22176@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , brobecker@adacore.com, msnyder@specifix.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080109151745.GA13181@adacore.com> <1199910284.14654.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080109203453.GI21281@adacore.com> <1199912695.14654.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080110041540.GK21281@adacore.com> <200801101038.m0AAcT01010079@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200801101038.m0AAcT01010079@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00240.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:38:29AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > I get hopelessly frustrated with tools that restrict me from doing > things. I have no problem with the skipping the prologue if I place > the breakpoint on a function because there is an easy to use way to > put a breakpoint on the first instruction of a function. But there is > no easy to use alternative for placing a breakpoint on a certain line > "within" the prologue like the case Michael sketched. I don't like my tools to restrict me, either, but I think this is a change rather than a restriction. There are no lines within the prologue (clicking on local variables as Michael described will stop after the prologue and any earlier local variables, at least at -O0 and with gcc). And Eclipse, the only IDE with which I am personally familiar, lets you type breakpoint expressions. So you can type "*function_name" into the breakpoint expression box, and you'll stop in front of the prologue. What do you think - is that good enough? > IMHO adding knobs is not desirable, but if the default is to keep the > current behaviour, I won't object. I also would prefer not to add a knob for this. I don't like knobs for things that (IMHO) we should simply decide consistently. Although, if the consensus is to keep the current behavior, at least an IDE could set the knob automatically (unconditionally). Then the user experience will be a little different between a GDB console presented by Eclipse versus a true GDB console (unfortunate), but the GUI experience will be more intuitive (fortunate). -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery