From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 955 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2003 20:25:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 948 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2003 20:25:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 2 Jan 2003 20:25:11 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h02JviB26905 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 14:57:44 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h02KOwn28498; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:24:58 -0500 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h02KOvn19877; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 12:24:57 -0800 Message-ID: <3E14A019.4A600913@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 20:25:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/PATCH] breakpoint.c: fix until command References: <15875.24035.153991.390184@localhost.redhat.com> <3E07A1F2.E7B77C89@redhat.com> <20021224000211.GA8155@nevyn.them.org> <3E07B0DC.CC733B10@redhat.com> <20021224010306.GA10409@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00024.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 04:57:00PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 03:53:22PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > > > > Elena Zannoni wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This fixes the problem reported in: > > > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2002-11/msg00144.html > > > > > > > > > > testsuite patch coming > > > > > > > > Elena, can you sum up in a sentence or two, what this change > > > > is intended to do? > > > > > > [Since I happen to be reading email right now, I'll do a sketchy > > > imitation.] > > > > > > The problem is that we were marking the breakpoint on the > > > user-specified line with the current frame. But when we hit that > > > breakpoint, if it's in a different function, it will have a different > > > frame. Right now we see that the frames don't match and resume > > > executing. > > > > > > Oops. > > > > OK, thanks. But we _need_ to mark the breakpoint with the current > > frame, because if the breakpoint is in the current frame, we don't > > want to stop in an inner recursive call, ie. not until the current > > frame hits the breakpoint. > > > > So this needs further consideration, and I don't think it can > > be approved as is. > > OK. Is that really what you expect "until" to do, though? I'd be > pretty surprised if an inner function call executed that line without > stopping. Nevertheless, that is and has always been the intent. If you're in factorial(5), and you say "until 100", you don't stop until line 100 is hit by factorial(5).