From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9630 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2008 14:30:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 9617 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2008 14:30:02 -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; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:29:45 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A26BC2A977C; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:29:43 -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 Xu84Y3CALgLn; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:29:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C69882A976D; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:29:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 08DE7E7ACB; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:28:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:30:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA?] Should break FILE:LINENO skip prologue? Message-ID: <20080112142859.GD9143@adacore.com> References: <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> <20080111182136.GD12954@adacore.com> <200801112113.m0BLDnAF024595@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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/msg00305.txt.bz2 > In that case, I think we will need an appropriate change for the > manual as well, as right now, "break *my_procedure" and "break 2" are > equivalent (at least AFAIK). I agree and that was in my plans (I believe that any change of behavior deserves an associated documentation update). I am also planning on adding a NEWS entry as well. > `break FUNCTION' > Set a breakpoint at entry to function FUNCTION. When using source > languages that permit overloading of symbols, such as C++, > FUNCTION may refer to more than one possible place to break. > *Note Breakpoint Menus: Breakpoint Menus, for a discussion of that > situation. > > This doesn't say anything about function prologs. > > `break *ADDRESS' > Set a breakpoint at address ADDRESS. You can use this to set > breakpoints in parts of your program which do not have debugging > information or source files. > > This doesn't say anything about the possible distinction between > *my_procedure as the address and 2 as its source line number. I think that this is because function prologues are, in the typical users view, an implementation detail. It's not a concept of the language, it's more an ABI-related concept. Dare I say that a lot of engineers nowdays don't know what an ABI is?... (I'll admit that I learnt about this after I completed my training) I don't know exactly how to document this behavior change yet, but I think we need to be careful not to confuse the average joe-hacker by being too technical too soon. -- Joel