From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@specifix.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Multiple breakpoints
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:37:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1207244006.31772.164.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080403140140.GA20986@caradoc.them.org>
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 10:01 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:51:00PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > >> TRY_CATCH expands to a loop, probably the loop condition has been
> > >> duplicated by the compiler.
> > >
> > > I think we try to set only one breakpoint per containing function,
> > > though.
> >
> > Uh-uh, you keep on telling this :-)
> > Per *block*, not per function.
>
> Durn. Well, I would have thought the parts of a for loop were in the
> same block, but I can see GCC deciding otherwise.
The inside parts probably are, but there has to be loop
block, and there has to be something outside the loop
block to decide whether or not to repeat the loop block.
If that made sense... ;-)
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@specifix.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Multiple breakpoints
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:36:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1207244006.31772.164.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
Message-ID: <20080403213600.kjaPKkyvi3QV1Q27WZFB_xRW_6BD14XcCYzt5pE6HdM@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080403140140.GA20986@caradoc.them.org>
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 10:01 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:51:00PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > >> TRY_CATCH expands to a loop, probably the loop condition has been
> > >> duplicated by the compiler.
> > >
> > > I think we try to set only one breakpoint per containing function,
> > > though.
> >
> > Uh-uh, you keep on telling this :-)
> > Per *block*, not per function.
>
> Durn. Well, I would have thought the parts of a for loop were in the
> same block, but I can see GCC deciding otherwise.
The inside parts probably are, but there has to be loop
block, and there has to be something outside the loop
block to decide whether or not to repeat the loop block.
If that made sense... ;-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-03 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-03 8:54 Nick Roberts
2008-04-03 9:01 ` Andreas Schwab
2008-04-03 13:18 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-04-03 13:55 ` Vladimir Prus
2008-04-03 14:07 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-04-03 14:02 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-04-03 17:37 ` Michael Snyder [this message]
2008-04-03 21:36 ` Michael Snyder
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1207244006.31772.164.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=msnyder@specifix.com \
--cc=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox