From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6746 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2006 03:54:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 6733 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jan 2006 03:54:43 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 03:54:41 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EzQsd-0006hJ-5Y; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:54:35 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 04:31:00 -0000 From: 'Daniel Jacobowitz' To: Mike Stump Cc: Eric Lemings , "'gdb@sources.redhat.com'" , "'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'" Subject: Re: Excluding C++ Library Code Message-ID: <20060119035435.GA25699@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mike Stump , Eric Lemings , "'gdb@sources.redhat.com'" , "'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'" References: <4FA4B7B3231C5D459E7BAD020213A94203114146@bco-exchange.bco.roguewave.com> <43843D96-0224-421B-BD6C-A00D455FA3B5@apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43843D96-0224-421B-BD6C-A00D455FA3B5@apple.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00188.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 07:25:58PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > On Jan 18, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Eric Lemings wrote: > >>Right now the infrastructure for it isn't there, but someday > >>it will be. But how would you indicate to the debugger what > >>constituted "uninteresting" headers? > > > >I figure the responsibility for this would probably reside more > >with the compiler than the debugger (e.g. -gnostdinc++) but I > >as hoping it could be done already. > > Either, we can mark the debug information with `system header', or > gdb can strncmp ("/usr/include") and a few others... :-) gcc has a > slightly easier time know when a header is a system header, but a > project GUI has a easier time having check boxes for components you > want to stop in and which ones you don't want to stop in, with system > headers being just one of the boxes. Right - my point was only that I've thought about it long enough to know it needed some more thinking about :-) I definitely agree that the debugger should be doing it, not the compiler. It's not appreciably harder here and it makes more sense to allow the user to just toggle a switch to suddenly step into libstdc++. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery