From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: Fernando Nasser Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Michael Snyder , Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Testsuite addition for x86 linux GDB and SIGALRM fix Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:06:00 -0000 Message-id: <3B604DD6.9080708@cygnus.com> References: <3B603B33.B9B33633@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00655.html > > All are the same. "step" gets into foo(), a "finish" finishes foo(), > but then there is bar() so you stop there next. Another "finish" and > you will stop on the line that follows the above lines. > > Note that a "finishi" command would leave you at the return point at > some PC in the middle of the above source lines. So what happens if you're sitting in foo() and type finish but the previous command wasn't step. Do you still find yourself in bar()? > > 'step' should never leave you in the same line from where you've issued > it. That is counter intuitive, even if you had a stop-finish in the > middle. This actually throws me. Reading it one way it suggests that ``step ; finish'' should have special behavour. See question above. Anyway try thinking of ``finish'' as a special form of step. What happens if you step through foo()? When foo() exits do you jump to bar() or go back to the caller? Andrew