From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17799 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2003 08:44:54 -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 17792 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2003 08:44:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ngate.noida.hcltech.com) (202.54.110.230) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2003 08:44:53 -0000 Received: from exch-01.noida.hcltech.com (exch-01 [204.160.254.29]) by ngate.noida.hcltech.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAM9Icwa003778; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:48:39 +0530 Received: by EXCH-01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:17:28 +0530 Message-ID: <1B3885BC15C7024C845AAC78314766C5010336EC@EXCH-01> From: "Manoj Verma, Noida" To: Mark Salter Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: RE: remote debugging packets Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 08:44:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00213.txt.bz2 Do you mean to indicate that the debugger may not stop at line #YY in this case? > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Salter [mailto:msalter@redhat.com] > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 9:37 PM > To: manojv@noida.hcltech.com > Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com > Subject: Re: remote debugging packets > > > >>>>> Manoj Verma, Noida writes: > > > Let me explain my concern in this way... > > I have following C snippet: > > > ... > > for(i=0; i<100; i++) // say line #xx > > *b0++ = *b1++; // say line #yy > > ... > > > and the assembly instruction corresponding to it is: > > > ... > > lc = 100; > > rep(lc) *b0++ = *b1++; > > ... > > > I set the breakpoint to both of these lines xx & yy. > > > Now when I am at XX, I say 'Continue'. If it steps first > then it comes to > > line #yy. Then if it continues, then I will not see my > program stopping at > > YY where it should. > > > Or is it like, before proceeding from line #YY the debugger > looks for some > > traps present at that particular line and then continues.. > > > Pl. correct me if I am wrong. > > If compiler optimization causes the loop to be executed as a > single machine instruction (as in your example), then there is > nothing GDB can do about it. GDB's behavior would be to stop > after the loop finishes because the loop is actually one machine > instruction. This seems reasonable to me. > > --Mark >