From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11851 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2008 18:22:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 11840 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jan 2008 18:22:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:21:46 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0463F2A96EC; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:21:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id AwD-BXLJ6iOw; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:21:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34FD62A9675; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:21:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CBEE0E7ACB; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:21:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:22:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Andreas Schwab , Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA?] Should break FILE:LINENO skip prologue? Message-ID: <20080111182136.GD12954@adacore.com> 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> <200801111126.m0BBQQDB006618@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200801111126.m0BBQQDB006618@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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/msg00280.txt.bz2 > 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. Yay! :). I am actually very grateful to everyone who participated in the discussion. Andreas, Eli, have your concerns been answered too? Just to recap, the proposal is the following. Considering the following code: 1. int 2. my_procedure (...) 3. { 4. int local1 = ...; 5. int local2 = ...; 6. ... The idea is that inserting a breakpoint on line 2 or 3 would be equivalent to breaking on "my_procedure", which means that the actual location will be line 4 (before the locals assignment take place). Thanks, -- Joel