From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25230 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2004 13:36:27 -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 25220 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2004 13:36:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Mar 2004 13:36:27 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3A882B9E; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 08:36:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <40682659.5060304@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:36:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Orjan Friberg Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Next over function and breakpoint setting References: <40572066.2020304@axis.com> <20040327055037.GA9418@nevyn.them.org> <4067E2A8.7040307@axis.com> In-Reply-To: <4067E2A8.7040307@axis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00715.txt.bz2 > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >> >> "The next line of code" is a very iffy concept. GDB doesn't analyze a >> line to figure out what it does, or where it might transfer control >> to... while possible, that would be a very different approach to >> debugging. So the only way we have to implement next is to step and >> see where we end up - and if we don't like it, go until we're somewhere >> else. > > > I guess I wasn't really asking a question - I was just confused by the way it was implemented since it wasn't what I had expected. Anyhow, thanks for clearing that up. BTW, have a look at the step out of range code. The theory is that the target be presented with a range of addresses and it run until it leave that range (as is the case with a step or next). The implementation breaks the theory -- the code didn't consider threads and multi-threaded interactions. As far as I'm concerned, to fix the theory we need to disentangle threads. Andrew