From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3292 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2008 21:43:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 3283 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Oct 2008 21:43:55 -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; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:43:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 306062A9666; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 17:43:18 -0400 (EDT) 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 aoYJFBaE0d6V; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 17:43:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 181F02A9633; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 17:43:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E1212E7ACD; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 14:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:43:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Daniel Jacobowitz , Pedro Alves , teawater Subject: Re: [RFA] Reverse Debugging, 3/5 Message-ID: <20081006214317.GD21853@adacore.com> References: <48E3CD0B.8020003@vmware.com> <20081006212132.GB21853@adacore.com> <48EA83AD.9040004@vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48EA83AD.9040004@vmware.com> 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00176.txt.bz2 > But on the other hand, this is exactly what we are doing here. > We are stepping into a function. Only we're doing it in > reverse, so we're coming in thru a return, not thru a call. I think part of the issue is that, to me, "step_into_function" is a misleading name for that function, as it implies that we haven't stepped into the function yet. So, what the function does is, now that we've stepped into the function, see if we need to continue somewhere a little farther or not. So, to me, doing the reverse of "step_into_function" meant going back to the calling site... > You still think I should split them up? At the very least, I think that a comment explaining what the context and what we need to do would be very useful. But I also think that putting the reverse part in its own function would be even clearer. Your choice, though. -- Joel