From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15669 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 2002 20:37:54 -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 15649 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2002 20:37:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out2.apple.com) (17.254.0.51) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Aug 2002 20:37:52 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g76KbpA02095 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:37:11 -0700 Received: from inghji.apple.com (inghji.apple.com [17.201.22.240]) by scv3.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g76KbpT10499 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:37:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] breakpoints and function prologues... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v543) From: Jim Ingham To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <1028439120.16228.ezmlm@sources.redhat.com> Message-Id: <6AF1E816-A97C-11D6-B045-00039379E320@> X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00137.txt.bz2 I agree with Jim here. I think most folks are actually surprised to find that if they break on the "{" beginning a function (or indeed anywhere before the first executable line of code) then their backtrace will not be correct. Understanding why this is so requires you to "pay attention to the man behind the curtain", and that we breaks the illusion that source code maps straight-forwardly onto the running program. Where this extra knowledge is helpful (like when debugging optimized code) it is fine to require folks to have it. But here, where it really doesn't do any good, I think it is just confusing. And, of course, it causes big heartburn for GUIs the varobj code, as I said earlier. I doubt that "{" breaks on the prologue is a crucial feature of gdb, and given that there are other ways to do this, I don't think it is really worth supporting... Jim On Saturday, August 3, 2002, at 10:32 PM, gdb-patches-digest-help@sources.redhat.com wrote: > From: Jim Blandy > Date: Fri Aug 2, 2002 11:48:26 PM US/Pacific > To: Michael Snyder > Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > Subject: Re: [RFC] breakpoints and function prologues... > > > > Michael Snyder writes: >>> So I'd support changing `break LINENO' to always skip the prologue. >> >> I would not. It's changing a behavior that people have >> become accustomed to. > > Well, that alone isn't a good reason to keep a behavior, is it? I > mean, it's pretty confusing. And there's a good alternative. > > > -- Jim Ingham jingham@apple.com Developer Tools - gdb Apple Computer