From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20374 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2010 15:43:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 20360 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2010 15:43:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:42:56 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECD9D2BAB1A; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 10:42:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 5d0gKraqxkjg; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 10:42:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADE6B2BAAED; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 10:42:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EBB21145907; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:42:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:43:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Edjunior Barbosa Machado , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: 'finish' command on ppc64 Message-ID: <20101108154249.GC2811@adacore.com> References: <4CD7E89D.9040502@br.ibm.com> <20101108122443.GA28189@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101108122443.GA28189@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> 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: 2010-11/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 > 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. Interesting. I'm not sure I would agree if the jump was the last insn of the line... Showing the caller's line in this case would be a departure from the usual behavior of showing the next insn, no? > 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. I think that's fine. -- Joel