From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21793 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2014 00:21:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 21782 invoked by uid 89); 20 Aug 2014 00:20:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:20:58 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1XJte2-0001L6-BE from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:20:54 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.41]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:20:54 -0700 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:20:53 -0700 Message-ID: <53F3E8FC.5090508@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:21:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Set breakpoint on the right line References: <1407806302-14295-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <20140819063838.GB1773@adacore.com> <53F3519B.3080905@codesourcery.com> <20140819134810.GJ1773@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20140819134810.GJ1773@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00372.txt.bz2 On 08/19/2014 09:48 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > I actually didn't pre-approve, but never mind :-). > Ur, I misunderstood you, sorry. > I think I understand, now. The problem using the first break-at-exit > line was that the watchpoint would be triggering at the same location > the breakpoint was inserted. So the "continue" test right after would > never hit that breakpoint. If my understanding is correct, the patch > is officially approved :). Yes, that is correct. -- Yao (齐尧)