From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29769 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2008 02:32:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 29757 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Sep 2008 02:32:01 -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; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 02:31:22 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F5D098418; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 02:31:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2919998417; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 02:31:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KbR6V-0003RR-5k; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:31:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 02:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [remote protocol] step range? Message-ID: <20080905023119.GA12899@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , gdb@sourceware.org References: <48C05DAF.3070705@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48C05DAF.3070705@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-09/txt/msg00035.txt.bz2 On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:14:07PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > Hey folks, > > I know this subject has come up before... > > What about a remote protocol command that says > "single step until you leave the range - ". This used to be on my todo list. I saw some fundamental problem with it and removed it... but I forgot to write down what the problem was :-( It might have been related to the inlined functions work. After that, it's tricky to figure out what the end range should be. > Would this for instance be a candidate for the new vCont extension? Yes, that'd be the way to add it. (If you can still call it "new" at this point...) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery