From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10035 invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2004 07:53:53 -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 10025 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2004 07:53:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aragorn.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.23) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Jul 2004 07:53:52 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.148.60]) by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id DWZ71575; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 10:53:41 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 00:03:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: mec.gnu@mindspring.com Message-Id: <7137-Sat24Jul2004105215+0300-eliz@gnu.org> CC: lsr@vinci.inesc-id.pt, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <410178E9.nail3NY14VXRW@mindspring.com> (mec.gnu@mindspring.com) Subject: Re: gdb calls bypassbreakpoints Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <410178E9.nail3NY14VXRW@mindspring.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00306.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:45:29 -0400 > From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com > > That is, if you do this: > > (gdb) break foo > (gdb) break bar > (gdb) print foo() + bar() > > Then when gdb hits the breakpoint in foo(), it's going to forget > that it was in the middle of evaluating "foo() + bar()". > gdb will continue evaluating foo(), and when that is done, > gdb will ask for more commands and not continue with the > "+ bar()" part. Well, perhaps we could arrange for the rest of the evaluation to be pushed on some queue, and the GDB could examine that queue before it asks for more commands.