From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-33744-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 9512 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2009 10:42:05 -0000
Received: (qmail 9504 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Feb 2009 10:42:05 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_FAIL,SPF_HELO_NEUTRAL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from gate.lvk.cs.msu.su (HELO lvk.cs.msu.su) (158.250.17.1)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:41:58 +0000
Received: from Debian-exim by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with spam-scanned (Exim 4.63) 	(envelope-from <vladimir@codesourcery.com>) 	id 1LVO9f-0001cP-7b 	for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:41:54 +0300
Received: from desktopvm.lvknet ([192.168.132.1] helo=wind.localnet) 	by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with esmtp (Exim 4.63) 	(envelope-from <vladimir@codesourcery.com>) 	id 1LVO9N-0001ZV-IF; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:41:33 +0300
From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
To: "Marc Khouzam" <marc.khouzam@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: MI *stopped versus silent breakpoint
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:42:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.11.90 (Linux/2.6.24-23-generic; KDE/4.2.61; i686; svn-921061; 2009-02-03)
Cc: "teawater" <teawater@gmail.com>,  "Daniel Jacobowitz" <drow@false.org>,  gdb@sources.redhat.com,  "Pedro Alves" <pedro@codesourcery.com>,  "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@vmware.com>
References: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA06CB0F19@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <daef60380902051930n4cc495bq1a7ccb9321ba1d3@mail.gmail.com> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF70@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF70@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200902061341.31585.vladimir@codesourcery.com>
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: 2009-02/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2

On Friday 06 February 2009 10:45:49 Marc Khouzam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think you need two proceed().
> This is because reverse-finish first sets a bp
> at the method we want to 'finish' out of, and then
> it does a single step backwards.  So, it looks like
> it needs this double proceed.

This proves that the target should be resumed twice. It does not prove that
a function called proceed() should be called twice nor that a function called
normal_stop should be called twice.

- Volodya