From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17508 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2002 16:59:04 -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 17468 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2002 16:59:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2002 16:59:02 -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 gAEGZhw15206 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:35:43 -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 gAEGx1D15443; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:59:01 -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 gAEGx0q20564; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:59:00 -0500 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id B5ACDFF79; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:54:50 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15827.54617.864081.545571@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:59:00 -0000 To: Pierre Muller Cc: Elena Zannoni , Andrew Cagney , Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Behavior of 'until' command In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20021114091524.032d2880@ics.u-strasbg.fr> References: <3DD2AB2B.5020304@redhat.com> <15826.42439.877628.972525@localhost.redhat.com> <20021113193458.GA31982@nevyn.them.org> <5.0.2.1.2.20021114091524.032d2880@ics.u-strasbg.fr> X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00170.txt.bz2 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