From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>
To: Pierre Muller <muller@cerbere.u-strasbg.fr>
Cc: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>,
Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>,
Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>,
gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Behavior of 'until' command
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:59:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <15827.54617.864081.545571@localhost.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20021114091524.032d2880@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
Pierre Muller writes:
> At 21:28 13/11/2002, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> >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" ??
>
>
> Isn't there still a difference, in thesense that
> if you leave the current frame without calling fun2,
> that we stop at the calling frame and remove the breakpoint
> that exists for fun2.
> But I assume that you didn't mean that the
> break fun2 should survive after leaving the frame...
Yes, if the current function finishes, you stop at the caller. And may
not reach fun2 ever.
Elena
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-11-14 16:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-11-13 11:26 Elena Zannoni
2002-11-13 11:33 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-11-13 11:42 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-11-13 12:35 ` Elena Zannoni
2002-11-14 0:19 ` Pierre Muller
2002-11-14 8:59 ` Elena Zannoni [this message]
2002-11-14 11:58 ` Eli Zaretskii
2002-11-13 12:34 ` Elena Zannoni
2002-11-13 12:40 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
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=15827.54617.864081.545571@localhost.redhat.com \
--to=ezannoni@redhat.com \
--cc=ac131313@redhat.com \
--cc=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=muller@cerbere.u-strasbg.fr \
/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