From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5013 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2010 14:54:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 5005 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2010 14:54:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp.nokia.com (HELO mgw-mx09.nokia.com) (192.100.105.134) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:54:50 +0000 Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o2IEsSW3016809 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:54:48 -0500 Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.30]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:54:45 +0200 Received: from mgw-da01.ext.nokia.com ([147.243.128.24]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:54:44 +0200 Received: from gar.localnet (berwst16747.europe.nokia.com [172.25.167.47]) by mgw-da01.ext.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o2IEsgso014387 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:54:43 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Andr=E9_P=F6nitz?= To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Getting pissed off by gdb. Please help with stepping in. Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:54:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-19-generic; KDE/4.3.2; i686; ; ) References: <11611.203.63.255.139.1268879984.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <201003181533.05408.andre.poenitz@nokia.com> <20100318143917.GA15423@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20100318143917.GA15423@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201003181554.44152.andre.poenitz@nokia.com> X-Nokia-AV: Clean 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/msg00131.txt.bz2 On Thursday 18 March 2010 15:39:23 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:33:05PM +0100, Andr=E9 P=F6nitz wrote: > > I used the term from the comment=20 > >=20 > > "Optimize by setting the stepping range to the line." >=20 > Oh, I see - that's the comment below, not the one quoted. OK. >=20 > > For me it's in fact the opposite to an optimization as the single stepp= ing=20 > > through the rest of the second line leads to one round trip through the= =20 > > stub for each of the remaining instructions which easily sums up to a > > couple of seconds for lines that generate a hundred instructions. >=20 > Just what are you disabling then? I thought it was the if block you > quoted, not the step range changes. I am unconditionally executing=20 if (1) { /* ... */ if (debug_infrun) fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "infrun: stepped to a different li= ne\n"); ecs->event_thread->stop_step =3D 1; print_stop_reason (END_STEPPING_RANGE, 0); stop_stepping (ecs); return; } This means the PC might indeed end up in the middle of a line, and a few instruction of this line have already been executed. However in these=20 somewhat "special" circumstances this is a significantly lesser evil then skipping a whole line (and taking several seconds for that ;-}) Andre'