From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11817 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2008 11:28:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 11807 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jan 2008 11:28:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:27:53 +0000 Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m0BBQRiG010093; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:26:27 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id m0BBQQDB006618; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:26:26 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:28:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200801111126.m0BBQQDB006618@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: brobecker@adacore.com CC: msnyder@specifix.com, ebotcazou@adacore.com, jimb@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20080111053547.GB12954@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:35:47 -0800) Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA?] Should break FILE:LINENO skip prologue? References: <20080109151745.GA13181@adacore.com> <200801092140.43362.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <200801101058.m0AAw7HA023877@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <200801101247.28736.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <1200001622.14654.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200801102208.m0AM8aDR023344@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20080111053547.GB12954@adacore.com> 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/msg00264.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:35:47 -0800 > From: Joel Brobecker > > The situation becomes trickier at -O1 and beyond, because parts of > the prologue may be delayed later inside the function body. But in > that case, the compiler will still emit a specific line for the > instruction block that does the assignment. So the actual linetable > will look like this: > > Line 3: prologue > Line 4. assign j > Lin3 3. prologue > Line 5. call sin, assign f > ... > > In that case, the skipping will only skip the first part of the > prologue, and you can still break on any assignment if you'd like. > My patches do not affect that situation either. > > > If we can somehow ascertain ourselves that indeed we can still put a > > breakpoint on the second assignment and have it break before entering > > sin(), I think Joels origional diff is actually acceptable. > > Hopefully the explaination above convinces you that this is the case? Thanks Joel, yes, after this explanation, I withdraw my objections. It's now clear that changing things the way you propose will not restrict me in any way. Mark