From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2624 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2002 16:34:16 -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 2613 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 16:34:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.red-bean.com) (66.244.67.22) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 16:34:14 -0000 Received: (from jimb@localhost) by zenia.red-bean.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7GGOCk11780; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 11:24:12 -0500 To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Jim Ingham , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] breakpoints and function prologues... References: <157B023C-B09E-11D6-BDB5-00039379E320@apple.com> <3D5C4FCB.4070005@ges.redhat.com> From: Jim Blandy Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:34:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3D5C4FCB.4070005@ges.redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.90 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00422.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: > > Most users I have talked to think that setting a break on the "{" at > > the beginning of a function means the same thing as setting a > > breakpoint on the function. But that is not the case. "break > > funcName" is AFTER the prologue, "break file: > > is the true function beginning. > > Don't forget that ``break func'' is is going to change. It's going to > go back to the start of the function! ... but only once GDB uses CFI and location lists to make prologue identification irrelevant. At that point, we've all agreed, this debate doesn't matter any more. The issue is what to do until then. Or are you saying that they should simply wait until that work is complete? When do we expect it to be complete?