Mirror of the gdb mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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