From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-11066-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 29554 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2002 08:19:12 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 29545 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2002 08:19:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cerbere.u-strasbg.fr) (130.79.112.250)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2002 08:19:11 -0000
Received: from laocoon.ics.u-strasbg.fr (laocoon.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.112.72])
	by cerbere.u-strasbg.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 977F4560; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:32:46 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20021114091524.032d2880@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
X-Sender: muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:19:00 -0000
To: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
From: Pierre Muller <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
Subject: Re: Behavior of 'until' command
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
In-Reply-To: <15826.46569.868549.694289@localhost.redhat.com>
References: <3DD2AB2B.5020304@redhat.com>
 <15826.42439.877628.972525@localhost.redhat.com>
 <20021113193458.GA31982@nevyn.them.org>
 <3DD2AB2B.5020304@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00163.txt.bz2

At 21:28 13/11/2002, Elena Zannoni wrote:
>Andrew Cagney writes:
> > > 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))));
> >      }
> > 
>
>Yes. So all agree that
>
>"until fun2" == "break fun2; continue"  ??


Isn't there still a difference, in thesense that 
if you leave the current frame without calling fun2,
that we stop at the calling frame and remove the breakpoint 
that exists for fun2. 
But I assume that you didn't mean that the 
break fun2 should survive after leaving the frame...