From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28287 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2010 12:25:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 28277 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2010 12:25:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:25:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oA8COtkq009269 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:24:56 -0500 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oA8COpl7010999 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:24:55 -0500 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oA8COlci028407; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 13:24:48 +0100 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id oA8COhh6028406; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 13:24:43 +0100 Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:25:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Edjunior Barbosa Machado Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: 'finish' command on ppc64 Message-ID: <20101108122443.GA28189@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <4CD7E89D.9040502@br.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CD7E89D.9040502@br.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2010-11/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2 On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:10:05 +0100, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote: > So, I'd like to know if there is any rule regarding of which line of code > should be pointed after issue a 'finish' command. Should be always one line > after the subroutine call? Is this behavior considered a bug or it's just > working as expected? It was discussed at: Re: [FYI] Inlining support, rough patch http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-06/msg00786.html with some Fedora patch (later dropped) so that after `finish' GDB would _always_ stay at the caller line. Currently testcases expect both cases: gdb.base/finish.exp # Some architectures will have one or more instructions after the # call instruction which still is part of the call sequence, so we # must be prepared for a "finish" to show us the void_func call # again as well as the statement after. Regards, Jan