From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-25740-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 7548 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2006 19:20:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 7538 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jul 2006 19:20:29 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 19:20:27 +0000
Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) 	by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k63JHkjd011495; 	Mon, 3 Jul 2006 21:17:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) 	by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k63JHk6g023215; 	Mon, 3 Jul 2006 21:17:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k63JHkrA004919; 	Mon, 3 Jul 2006 21:17:46 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 19:20:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200607031917.k63JHkrA004919@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: jimb@codesourcery.com
CC: sascha@pasalacqua.de, gdb@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <vt2u05yczkx.fsf@theseus.home.> (message from Jim Blandy on Mon, 	03 Jul 2006 11:28:46 -0700)
Subject: Re: How to interrupt a stepping GDB ?
References: <20060620122335.GB20079@nevyn.them.org> <vt2u05yczkx.fsf@theseus.home.>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
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: 2006-07/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2

> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 11:28:46 -0700
> 
> Maybe this has been discussed before, but:
> 
> Should 'step' stop stepping if the PC fails to make forward progress?
> In every situation I can think of, that would mean that a loop
> iteration has been completed.  It shouldn't affect loops that cover
> more than one line.

I think that's wrong; "step" operators on a line-level, not statement
level.

> But it might be confusing to the user: "I told it to step, and nothing
> happened!"

I think that would indeed be a problem.

The solution for the problem is to change the source code such that
there actually is a statement inside the loop:

  while(a)
    a--;

or perhaps

  for (; a; a--)
    ;

will even work.

Mark