Re: RFC: next/finish/etc -vs- exceptions

Jan Kratochvil
2010-11-30T17:02:36Z

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:43:28 +0100, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I looked briefly at using breakpoint_ops, but it seems like it would
> require a bunch of new methods that are specific to just this
> breakpoint. Maybe that is the way to go?

One day probably.

> Jan> It probably should not be placed in TP. If we are
> Jan> stepping/until-ing/etc. some code and execute some breakpoint's
> Jan> command list trying to step/next/etc. again already from a
> Jan> different frame it won't work. But this is a problem for most of
> Jan> the TP variables already so that's OK for this patch. It should be
> Jan> carried over from the set-breakpoint to resume-breakpoint
> Jan> otherwise.
>
> I thought that gdb did not support nested inferior-control commands like
> this.
>
> It would be a nice feature.

I was thinking Phil was coding something like that with Python commands
attached to breakpoints. It would need more fixes but I was just pointing
out an incompatibility also in this code.

With current GDB it seems OK to me.

> >> +if { [compile_java_from_source ${srcdir}/$subdir/${srcfile} ${binfile} "-g"] != "" } {
> >> + untested "Couldn't compile ${srcdir}/$subdir/${srcfile}"
> >> + return -1
>
> Jan> maybe prepare_for_testing?
> Jan> (nitpick)
>
> I left this as-is. compile_java_from_source does some extra processing
> right now.

I see now, sorry.

Thanks,
Jan