From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fernando Nasser To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Testsuite addition for x86 linux GDB and SIGALRM fix Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 15:28:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B4A300A.BD2269AE@cygnus.com> References: <200005192321.e4JNLEv13368@delius.kettenis.local> <3B3ABD6E.1040304@cygnus.com> <3B4A2056.4D58E307@cygnus.com> <20010709143406.A17003@nevyn.them.org> <3B4A2C7C.85C688C4@cygnus.com> <20010709151725.A19811@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00226.html Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 06:13:16PM -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote: > > > Stepping in to bar, typing finish, > > > and ending up after the call to foo would be exceedingly non-intuitive. > > > > > > > This is true. But a finish would not stop after the call to foo() in > > this case. The stepping would be aborted as we entered foo() itself > > (note that I said "step", not "next"). The result is quite intuitive > > in this case and you just provided one good example of how we could > > use it -- one could go "finish"-ing until the desired function was > > entered (without the need to step again and without the weird thing > > of appearing to stop at the same line you were before). > > I personally think that this would be more confusing - I finish a > function and end up, not in its caller, but in some other function > called from the caller? But I've no strong opinion; both options seem > a little clunky. > Of course, this could be made an option, so different tastes are accommodated (default to current behavior). But I won't have time to implement it in the near future, so you don't have to worry about it :-) Regards and thanks for the comments, Fernando -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9