From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11422 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2002 19:42:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11415 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2002 19:42:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2002 19:42:36 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89243E4B; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:42:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DD2AB2B.5020304@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:42:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Behavior of 'until' command References: <15826.42439.877628.972525@localhost.redhat.com> <20021113193458.GA31982@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00146.txt.bz2 > Similarly from foo line 15 where should 'until fun2' take me? Inside >> fun2, at line 10? Or at line 16? Currently I end up at line 22 which >> is in main. This seems clearly wrong either way. >> >> Any thoughts? > > > Your reading sounds right to me. If you look at the output of 'set > debug target 1' in your example, we set and hit the breakpoint in fun2 > and then decide to continue for some reason - that's got to be a bug. > > If you have a chance this would make a great testcase. In fact I'm sure it once worked? Being able to use `until fun2' in cases like: foo () { return (a + b + foo() + bar() + fun2(bar(bax)))); } Andrew