From: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
To: "Juraj Oršulić" <juraj.orsulic@fer.hr>
Cc: <gdb@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: "continue" in breakpoint commands breaks line-by-line stepping
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:58:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <871stx8upa.fsf@pokyo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEPqvoxrAf9a2kWd92+AnB--VUVnQHrty9ovtgs1p4J5vtZyfA@mail.gmail.com> ("Juraj \=\?utf-8\?B\?T3LFoXVsacSHIidz\?\= message of "Fri, 10 Mar 2017 09:24:45 +0100")
>>>>> "Juraj" == Juraj Oršulić <juraj.orsulic@fer.hr> writes:
Juraj> Hi everyone, I have a quick question. I have added some breakpoint
Juraj> commands for logging using the "commands" command. Since I don't want
Juraj> to stop the execution in these points, I added a "continue", as
Juraj> mentioned in https://sourceware.org/gdb/onlinedocs/gdb/Break-Commands.html.
Juraj> However, this breaks stepping line-by-line in outer frames - if I
Juraj> stumple upon one of these logging breakpoints, it issues a "continue",
Juraj> and I lose control if I call "next" when I am in an outer frame. How
Juraj> could I mitigate this? Perhaps by redefining "next" to set a temporary
Juraj> breakpoint on the next line to ensure that I stop there? Should this
Juraj> be the default behavior?
There are a few reasonably good ways to deal with the
"next-over-continue" issue.
One way, specifically for logging, is to use the dprintf command instead
of a breakpoint+commands. dprintf doesn't have this problem.
Another way, if you need something more generic, is to use Python to
create your breakpoints and do your actions in the |stop| method. This
was introduced specifically to deal with this problem.
A third way, specific to modifying a variable, is not to do this:
b x
commands
silent
set y = 73
cont
end
but instead:
b x if y = 73, 1
Breakpoint conditions are evaluated at a different time and don't affect
"next"ing.
I think it would be good if the "Break Commands" documentation was
updated to mention dprintf and the variable setting scenario, and to
point out the next-over-continue problem.
Maybe gdb could introduce some kind of flag to "continue" to breakpoints
to solve this problem more generally.
Tom
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-16 8:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-10 8:25 Juraj Oršulić
2017-03-16 8:58 ` Tom Tromey [this message]
2017-03-16 12:53 ` Tom Tromey
[not found] ` <51b1626e27124e7f9b43603f0bb2a4dc@MAIL.fer.hr>
2017-03-16 12:21 ` Juraj Oršulić
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=871stx8upa.fsf@pokyo \
--to=tom@tromey.com \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
--cc=juraj.orsulic@fer.hr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox