Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> But on the other hand, this is exactly what we are doing here.
>> We are stepping into a function.  Only we're doing it in
>> reverse, so we're coming in thru a return, not thru a call.
> 
> I think part of the issue is that, to me, "step_into_function" is
> a misleading name for that function, as it implies that we haven't
> stepped into the function yet.  So, what the function does is,
> now that we've stepped into the function, see if we need to continue
> somewhere a little farther or not. So, to me, doing the reverse of
> "step_into_function" meant going back to the calling site...
> 
>> You still think I should split them up?
> 
> At the very least, I think that a comment explaining what the context
> and what we need to do would be very useful.  But I also think that
> putting the reverse part in its own function would be even clearer.
> Your choice, though.

All right, how do you like this change (as a diff from the previous change)?

Don't worry, I'll post a new revised patch when we're at or near 
convergence.