From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: [rfa] libgdb updates to doco
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:38:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B5F9084.9060302@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00638.html

Hello,

Per recent post to gdb@, the attached adds a libgdb chapter to the GDB 
internals document.

Eli, in your original comments you mentioned more @node's.  I'm not sure 
that I follow - gdbint is very @node sparse only having them for @chapters.

	Andrew
>From msnyder@redhat.com Wed Jul 25 21:29:00 2001
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>, Fernando Nasser <fnasser@cygnus.com>, Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu>, gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] Testsuite addition for x86 linux GDB and SIGALRM fix
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:29:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B5F9CBE.4A9@redhat.com>
References: <200005192321.e4JNLEv13368@delius.kettenis.local> <3B3ABD6E.1040304@cygnus.com> <3B4A2056.4D58E307@cygnus.com> <20010709143406.A17003@nevyn.them.org> <3B4A2C7C.85C688C4@cygnus.com> <3B5F5218.5D55130E@cygnus.com> <3B5F595F.821DA2A5@redhat.com> <3B5F7700.6030407@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00639.html
Content-length: 1208

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> > Michael Snyder wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I must disagree.  Often, when you reach this line and you
> >> want to step into foo, you will not notice the call to bar
> >> until it is too late and you have stepped into bar.
> >>
> >> When that happens, the only way to reach foo is to "finish" from
> >> bar, and then step again.
> >>
> >
> >
> > As I have explained in this thread (one month ago), the single stepping
> > caused by finish would stop as soon as foo is entered -- exactly the
> > behavior you want.
> 
> I think that would be very counter intuitive.  The primatives are:
> 
>         o       step executes instructions until you
>                 leave the current line
>                 (be it enter a function or reach a new
>                 line)
> 
>         o       finish leaves the current function
>                 (reducing the stack depth by one)

I agree; I do not like the idea of this proposed 
enhancement of finish.  I think that if the source
looked like

	foo (bar ());

and I stepped into bar, then said "finish", and 
found myself in foo, I would find that confusing.
It would seem as if bar had been called from foo, 
which is not the case.

Michael