From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14805 invoked by alias); 6 May 2008 12:43:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 14789 invoked by uid 22791); 6 May 2008 12:43:46 -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; Tue, 06 May 2008 12:43:25 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A62983F0; Tue, 6 May 2008 12:43:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D802980F7; Tue, 6 May 2008 12:43:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JtMVu-0003Eq-Qi; Tue, 06 May 2008 08:43:22 -0400 Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 15:47:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: vladimir@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] bpstat_do_actions in one place Message-ID: <20080506124322.GA12429@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , vladimir@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200804242002.03590.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200805051304.05449.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20080505114824.GB22274@caradoc.them.org> <200805051658.32272.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20080505192315.GA19885@caradoc.them.org> <20080505194130.GA20958@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2008-05/txt/msg00230.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 06:14:44AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 15:41:30 -0400 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Cc: vladimir@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > I wasn't worried about embedding the q in the breakpoint commands > > list, but about what effect it has when the prompt is triggered by > > a command in the breakpoint command list. Basically, how far up > > the call stack is considered "the remaining output"? Since what > > it actually does is abort the command, not just discard the output. > > Okay, but is there a real problem here? That is, can the user really > do something like that from inside breakpoint commands? I think it's > not possible, since `q' is not a command. Am I right? If not, please > show an example of doing this from breakpoint commands, because I > cannot imagine a use case. Here's the example from upthread with more detail. int foo() { while (1) /* Nothing on line 4 */ ; } int main() { foo (); } (gdb) break 4 (gdb) commands > backtrace > continue > end This loop is tricky to interrupt. But I see now that the entire commands list will still be interrupted by quit so we will not execute the continue. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery