From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-36852-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 28058 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2010 19:03:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 28035 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Feb 2010 19:03:14 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (HELO mail-out4.apple.com) (17.254.13.23)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:03:10 +0000
Received: from relay11.apple.com (relay11.apple.com [17.128.113.48]) 	by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9318B665AB 	for <gdb@sourceware.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gdbrulez.apple.com (gdbrulez.apple.com [17.224.14.42]) 	by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id FF.22.04140.C64547B4; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Subject: Re: GDB steping into STL Headers.
From: Jim Ingham <jingham@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <m3ocjvsll2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:03:00 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1CF86F7D-0B47-47D7-A6E2-24853D50653D@apple.com>
References: <27535106.post@talk.nabble.com> <27542787.post@talk.nabble.com> <m3ocjvsll2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
To: gdb@sourceware.org
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-02/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2

It sounds like the STL code got inlined?  Then next would also step in, sin=
ce gdb doesn't see inlined functions as new frames.

Jim

On Feb 11, 2010, at 9:56 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:

>>>>>> ">" =3D=3D mweglicki8208  <mweglicki@gmail.com> writes:
>=20
> [ "next" ]
>>> Of course I tried next. But in this respect it behaves the same as "ste=
p".
>>> Maybe there is something wrong with my gdb configuration....
>=20
> That is surprising, since "next" should step over calls.
>=20
> Anyway, no, there is no way in gdb to disable stepping into certain
> calls.  This feature is requested fairly frequently, but so far nobody
> has worked on implementing it.
>=20
> This is also http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D8287
>=20
> FWIW I think this would be a good feature to have.
>=20
> Tom