From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23964 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2010 17:15:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 23943 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2010 17:15:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:15:43 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oAUHFfVn009627 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:15:41 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oAUHFeN1004091; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:15:40 -0500 From: Phil Muldoon To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: next/finish/etc -vs- exceptions References: <20101125075847.GA19270@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20101130170215.GA4309@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> Reply-to: pmuldoon@redhat.com X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:15:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20101130170215.GA4309@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:02:15 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-11/txt/msg00504.txt.bz2 Jan Kratochvil writes: >> I thought that gdb did not support nested inferior-control commands like >> this. >> >> It would be a nice feature. > > I was thinking Phil was coding something like that with Python commands > attached to breakpoints. It would need more fixes but I was just pointing > out an incompatibility also in this code. > > With current GDB it seems OK to me. Conditional breakpoints in Python that evaluate a Python function to determine whether or not to stop. Though there is no reason why in the future what you describe could not happen with commands attached to a breakpoint. Cheers, Phil