From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30989 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2010 17:41:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 30981 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2010 17:41:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:41:46 +0000 Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.67.167]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC8B390BC; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.125.19] (unknown [10.20.125.19]) by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92B398E72B; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BA265D6.6000408@vmware.com> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:41:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090609) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: "temp@sourceboost.com" , "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: Getting pissed off by gdb. Please help with stepping in. References: <11611.203.63.255.139.1268879984.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00139.txt.bz2 Doug Evans wrote: > I agree it should work as you expect. I don't see the step out of bar > continuing passed foo, but I do see it stepping into foo (as if you > had done two steps, so to speak: step out of bar and step into foo). > [This is with gdb 7.0 and cvs head.] > One *could* use `finish' to accomplish what you want but I think a > `step' at the end of the function should behave like `finish' (modulo > printing the return value of course). > This was discussed a few years ago. I think it used to work the way you (doug) expect, but some people thought it should work the way it does now. If I'm not mistaken, there's a user settable mode variable that will set it back to the way it used to behave, but don't ask me to remember what it is called.