From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id /GzXKq+u2mOlZScAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 01 Feb 2023 13:25:51 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id A38451E128; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:25:51 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=Qxy7++F7; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 471441E0D3 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:25:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F17A3858413 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 18:25:50 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8F17A3858413 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1675275950; bh=QBaja6sdX531spawmEX13VQ+DenA+l7JZQn3MO+mLRM=; h=Date:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=Qxy7++F7opLYL/sQeub0JLgIX+IMJAVdH92Rp/1xxVSShcl2gCgT+vho/TvbPKrZy /7JCD8AJVVrfKpy8Xac9j5LCd+nTNkc22qqyhNai1NQSv+pEk98uMC3F0WvDEZQBXk ZS66SwVtsdXBqgX8CNcnDEgPQ6qzTcv+tlcqbaSA= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB3DE3858428 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 18:25:30 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org DB3DE3858428 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pNHnW-0005z8-B7; Wed, 01 Feb 2023 13:25:30 -0500 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pNHnT-0007Q3-Rf; Wed, 01 Feb 2023 13:25:29 -0500 Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 20:25:26 +0200 Message-Id: <83ilglz1ih.fsf@gnu.org> To: Andrew Burgess Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <87v8kls2ev.fsf@redhat.com> (message from Andrew Burgess on Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:47:52 +0000) Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 02/13] gdb/doc: extend the documentation for conditional breakpoints References: <78764570698177ecf049fdab759908ca88fd7bd3.1675185990.git.aburgess@redhat.com> <83tu061stt.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8kls2ev.fsf@redhat.com> X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > From: Andrew Burgess > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:47:52 +0000 > > If a breakpoint condition calls a function in your program, then it is > possible that your program could stop for some reason while in the > called function. For example, @value{GDBN} might hit a breakpoint in > the called function, or the called function may receive a signal > (e.g.@ a @code{SIGSEGV}) as a result of some undefined behavior. If > this happens then @value{GDBN} will stop. Depending on the settings > @code{unwindonsignal} and @code{unwind-on-terminating-exception} > (@pxref{Calling,,Calling Program Functions}) @value{GDBN} may unwind > the stack back to the breakpoint location, or may leave the program at > the frame where the stop occurred. If @value{GDBN} remains in the > frame where the stop occurred then you can debug the inferior from > this point to understand why the called function failed. > > Does this address your concerns? Some. But I also think that the text should more explicitly explain that the various values of the unwind-* options are there precisely to tailor what happens to the needs of the debugging session. The text is now written as purely descriptional: if you set the option this way, what will happen is so-and-so. It would be better, I think, to turn the table and say: if you want to debug the called function when this happen, set the option to this value; OTOH if you want ignore that and continue debugging the inferior, set the option to that other value. Does this make sense?