From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23763 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2002 20:35:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23756 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2002 20:35:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2002 20:35:17 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gADKC4w17163 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:12:04 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gADKZHD19166; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:35:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (romulus-int.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.46]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gADKXtq32357; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:33:56 -0500 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 0CABDFF7A; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:28:25 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15826.46569.868549.694289@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:35:00 -0000 To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Elena Zannoni , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Behavior of 'until' command In-Reply-To: <3DD2AB2B.5020304@redhat.com> References: <15826.42439.877628.972525@localhost.redhat.com> <20021113193458.GA31982@nevyn.them.org> <3DD2AB2B.5020304@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00149.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: > > Similarly from foo line 15 where should 'until fun2' take me? Inside > >> fun2, at line 10? Or at line 16? Currently I end up at line 22 which > >> is in main. This seems clearly wrong either way. > >> > >> Any thoughts? > > > > > > Your reading sounds right to me. If you look at the output of 'set > > debug target 1' in your example, we set and hit the breakpoint in fun2 > > and then decide to continue for some reason - that's got to be a bug. > > > > If you have a chance this would make a great testcase. > > In fact I'm sure it once worked? Being able to use `until fun2' in > cases like: > > foo () > { > return (a + b + foo() + bar() + fun2(bar(bax)))); > } > Yes. So all agree that "until fun2" == "break fun2; continue" ?? Elena > Andrew >