From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 120096 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2016 16:24:54 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 120013 invoked by uid 89); 19 Apr 2016 16:24:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Was, our X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:24:24 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D520A7D0D5 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:24:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pinnacle.lan (ovpn-113-39.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.39]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u3JGOM22025497 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA256 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 12:24:22 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:24:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Break at each iteration for breakpoints placed on a while statement Message-ID: <20160419092420.5a076e7d@pinnacle.lan> In-Reply-To: <57116C66.6050701@redhat.com> References: <20150818235334.1afb0c85@pinnacle.lan> <86zit9nzac.fsf@gmail.com> <570FC5BB.6060103@codesourcery.com> <86zisvkrqg.fsf@gmail.com> <20160415124832.62f1bf28@pinnacle.lan> <57116C66.6050701@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-04/txt/msg00463.txt.bz2 On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 23:34:14 +0100 Pedro Alves wrote: > On 04/15/2016 08:48 PM, Kevin Buettner wrote: > > > If the compiler could arrange to set `is_stmt' to false for that > > inital branch, we could more easily arrange for GDB to not place a > > break on that initial branch. It might even "just work" without any > > additional coding on our part. > > > > One of my colleagues within Red Hat looked at this and came up with a > > gcc patch, but it turned out to cause breakage elsewhere. I still > > think it makes sense to try to tackle this problem from the compiler > > side though. > > Was a gcc bug ever filed for this? Not by me. I'll do some checking; if there's not one, I'll file it. Kevin