From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28229 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2010 14:39:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 28185 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2010 14:39:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:39:27 +0000 Received: (qmail 25829 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2010 14:39:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 18 Mar 2010 14:39:25 -0000 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:39:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_P=F6nitz?= Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Getting pissed off by gdb. Please help with stepping in. Message-ID: <20100318143917.GA15423@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_P=F6nitz?= , gdb@sourceware.org References: <11611.203.63.255.139.1268879984.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <201003181506.15964.andre.poenitz@nokia.com> <20100318141335.GA12031@caradoc.them.org> <201003181533.05408.andre.poenitz@nokia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <201003181533.05408.andre.poenitz@nokia.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00130.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:33:05PM +0100, André Pönitz wrote: > I used the term from the comment > > "Optimize by setting the stepping range to the line." Oh, I see - that's the comment below, not the one quoted. OK. > For me it's in fact the opposite to an optimization as the single stepping > through the rest of the second line leads to one round trip through the > stub for each of the remaining instructions which easily sums up to a > couple of seconds for lines that generate a hundred instructions. Just what are you disabling then? I thought it was the if block you quoted, not the step range changes. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery