From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6622 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2008 14:02:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 6544 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Apr 2008 14:02:09 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:01:44 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 535B2983C5; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:01:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A8898278; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:01:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JhQ0a-0005So-Ui; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:01:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:07:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Multiple breakpoints Message-ID: <20080403140140.GA20986@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <18420.39684.185853.891083@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080403131816.GA16695@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00025.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:51:00PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > >> TRY_CATCH expands to a loop, probably the loop condition has been > >> duplicated by the compiler. > > > > I think we try to set only one breakpoint per containing function, > > though. > > Uh-uh, you keep on telling this :-) > Per *block*, not per function. Durn. Well, I would have thought the parts of a for loop were in the same block, but I can see GCC deciding otherwise. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6174 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2008 14:02:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 6161 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Apr 2008 14:02:03 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:01:44 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 535B2983C5; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:01:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A8898278; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:01:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JhQ0a-0005So-Ui; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:01:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:02:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Multiple breakpoints Message-ID: <20080403140140.GA20986@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <18420.39684.185853.891083@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080403131816.GA16695@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00024.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20080403140200.DL8Hg4Nnl1Twj51SCHL9mqEVTHinRnl3wdS0N0nwx8U@z> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:51:00PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > >> TRY_CATCH expands to a loop, probably the loop condition has been > >> duplicated by the compiler. > > > > I think we try to set only one breakpoint per containing function, > > though. > > Uh-uh, you keep on telling this :-) > Per *block*, not per function. Durn. Well, I would have thought the parts of a for loop were in the same block, but I can see GCC deciding otherwise. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery