From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31402 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2008 02:12:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 31362 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Oct 2008 02:12:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:12:17 +0000 Received: (qmail 20611 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2008 02:12:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 9 Oct 2008 02:12:15 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Michael Snyder Subject: Re: [RFA] Resubmit reverse debugging [4/5] Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:12:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <48EC18B9.5050209@vmware.com> <200810090135.56035.pedro@codesourcery.com> <48ED5BD0.7050107@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <48ED5BD0.7050107@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810090312.16021.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00268.txt.bz2 A Thursday 09 October 2008 02:18:08, Michael Snyder wrote: > Sorry, it's an artifact of the fact that I've been on a > fork for so long. =C2=A0When I copied this code from finish_command, > the code that I copied had a similar call to internal_error. >=20 > In fact, finish_command_continuation still does. Yeah, the continuation has a check for `function !=3D NULL', though. > In fact, it's the same call that used to be in "finish_command". >=20 > So what should it be? =C2=A0Just "error"? Ah, I think I see what's going on. "finish" is not meaningful in the outermost frame, so, you'd get an error before reaching here, if you had no symbols.=20=20 (gdb) finish "finish" not meaningful in the outermost frame. (gdb) reverse-finish "finish" not meaningful in the outermost frame. Is it possible to be at frame !=3D #0 and not find a function? Wait, what does your remark about the frame #0 special case mean then? (I have to admit I got confused again by what finish in reverse means. I'd personaly trade it easily for "begin", and I'd do the reverse step to go to the caller myself. Then, you could do begin at frame #0 too...) > I think I understand that you think it would be more "local" > to put the error here -- but is it worth it if it makes us > add complexity? >=20 > finish_command already tests a number of things, including > whether we are async and (now) whether we are reverse, and > contains a number of error calls already. No biggie with me. Just thought you had signed up to do the function split. ;-) --=20 Pedro Alves