From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23888 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2010 10:41:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 23877 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Mar 2010 10:41:09 -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; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:41:02 +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 o2JAdLoU015004; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:39:21 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o2JAdKtj018316; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:39:20 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:41:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201003191039.o2JAdKtj018316@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: rearnsha@arm.com CC: eliz@gnu.org, pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb@sourceware.org, dje@google.com, temp@sourceboost.com In-reply-to: <1268992264.6009.4.camel@e200601-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (message from Richard Earnshaw on Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:51:04 +0000) 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> <201003181953.o2IJr9MV006009@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <1268992264.6009.4.camel@e200601-lin.cambridge.arm.com> 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/msg00169.txt.bz2 > From: Richard Earnshaw > Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:51:04 +0000 > > On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 20:53 +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > 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! > > They might be used to it, but that won't stop them hating it! I'm in > agreement with those that want step at the end of a function to not > enter then next call. It's a right royal pain having to have a sequence > such as > > step > > > > > &*%^%^£$*&(*^ I've done one too many s, now I've got to restart my > debugging session and do it all again > > step > > > finish > step Sorry, but I must be missing something. Howe can you end up doing too many "step"s in the foo(bar()) scenario? I mean, if you do one step too many, finding yourself stepping into foo() wheras you really wanted to step over foo(), you can simply use "finish". There is no need to restart your session.