From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2456 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2009 13:35:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 2444 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2009 13:35:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:35:10 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ADE41070A; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:35:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 173CD104DF; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:35:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MKuXD-0007zH-1l; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:35:07 -0400 Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis , Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [FYI] Inlining support, rough patch Message-ID: <20090628133507.GA30643@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis , Tom Tromey References: <200807172353.m6HNr1nY015884@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20080718130308.GA19045@caradoc.them.org> <200807251446.m6PEkfwc027635@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20080725174636.GB2433@caradoc.them.org> <200903312042.n2VKgIUx003764@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090420154909.GA5386@caradoc.them.org> <20090420155405.GA6072@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20090627180122.GA6139@caradoc.them.org> <20090628101621.GA31457@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090628101621.GA31457@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00787.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:16:21PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > As I did not understand how the testsuites could work before > - it is clear it was due to some compiler differences. I should retest the > changes against FSF GCC first, my only concern was Fedora GCC for that patch. OK, that makes sense. I should hunt up a Fedora system compiler for testing. > ### Here `finish' is at the _next_ line of the call. I would expect rather: > ### (gdb) finish > ### Run till exit from #0 func () at finish.c:1 > ### main () at finish.c:4 > ### 3 /* 3 */ func (); > ### Value returned is $1 = 1 > ### Whether this or that case is shown is also dependent on the current > ### architecture - currently the behavior differs depending of whether there > ### is at least one instruction of the same source line after the call > ### instruction. Next `step' will have to do _nothing_ to the inferior, just > ### display the next line in GDB. Thanks for the example. I think this would be a nice change. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery