From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21513 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2010 19:54:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 21492 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2010 19:54:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:54:54 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2IJrAHO006644; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:53:10 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o2IJr9MV006009; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:53:09 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:54:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201003181953.o2IJr9MV006009@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: eliz@gnu.org CC: pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb@sourceware.org, dje@google.com, temp@sourceboost.com In-reply-to: <831vfhv2s5.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:38:18 +0200) Subject: Re: Getting pissed off by gdb. Please help with stepping in. References: <11611.203.63.255.139.1268879984.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <201003181521.48681.pedro@codesourcery.com> <8339zxv5tp.fsf@gnu.org> <201003181855.39643.pedro@codesourcery.com> <831vfhv2s5.fsf@gnu.org> 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/msg00148.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:38:18 +0200 > From: Eli Zaretskii > > > From: Pedro Alves > > Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:55:39 +0000 > > Cc: dje@google.com, > > temp@sourceboost.com > > > > Users often find this behaviour unexpected (I've often > > wished GDB would behave like what the OP is suggesting too). > > Then why don't we change the behavior to match what users expect? Because different users expect different things. I for example would be somewhat annoyed by having to issue an extra "step". And the argument that this is what people that are familliar with Visual Studio are used to is pretty weak. GDB users are used the GDB behaviour!